The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) in the frame of energy justice A study concerning the experiences of regional energy justice from the perspectives of municipalities in the Cleantech region.
Master’s Thesis for the Spatial Planning (Planologie) programme Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Gerard Verweij July 2020
1
COLOPHON
Title: The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) in the frame of energy justice Subtitle: A study concerning the experiences of regional energy justice from the perspectives of municipalities in the Cleantech region.
Author: Gerard Verweij Student number: S1047298
Date: July 2020 Status: Definitive Number of words: 30.331
Supervisors: Dr. L.J. Carton (Linda) | Radboud University Ir. K. van de Meeberg – van Gorkum (Kirsten) | Over Morgen
Picture cover sheet: Adapted from Hulshof & Straver (2018)
2 ABSTRACT (NL) Vanwege het Klimaatakkoord is Nederland verdeeld in 30 regio’s die afzonderlijk een Regionale Energy Strategie (RES) ontwikkelen en moeten komen tot een regionaal energie bod. De regio’s bestaan uit verschillende gemeenten die allemaal een bijdrage (in TWh) moeten leveren aan het regionale energie bod. Een duidelijke richtlijn voor de verdeling van de TWh over de gemeenten binnen een regio ontbreekt. Daarnaast zijn de ervaringen van de gemeenten over de rechtvaardigheid van deze verdeling, als de uitkomst van het RES-proces, nog niet geanalyseerd. Daarom is het doel van dit onderzoek om te ontdekken of de gemeenten, binnen de RES van de Cleantech regio, de verdeling van de gemeentelijke bijdrage aan het regionale energie bod als rechtvaardig ervaren. Dit onderzoek gebruikt de theorie van energierechtvaardigheid omdat het op twee manieren inzicht geeft in het onderliggende mechanisme van rechtvaardigheid: verdelende rechtvaardigheid en procedurele rechtvaardigheid. Eerst wordt de discussie over rechtvaardigheid geanalyseerd in de startnotities van een aantal RES-regio’s. Vervolgens worden de ervaringen over zowel de uitkomst van de verdeling van de energiebronnen (in TWh) als het proces van de RES onderzocht vanuit het perspectief van de gemeenten in de Cleantech regio. Het onderzoek maakt gebruik van een content- analyse, enquête en diepte-interviews om een onderbouwd antwoord te geven op de onderzoeksvraag: welke feitelijke en subjectieve factoren vormen het regionale energie rechtvaardigheid perspectief, vanuit het perspectief van gemeenten in de Cleantech regio? Uit het onderzoek komen vijf factoren naar voren die bijdragen aan een rechtvaardige verdeling: landschapspotentieel, gemeentelijke ambitie, morele verplichting, afweging tussen een gelijke verdeling en een kosten-efficiënte verdeling en de verdeling van lusten en lasten. De verdeling van de energieopgave in de Cleantech regio is gebaseerd op de het landschapspotentieel dat de meest effectieve en geschikte locaties kiest. Echter, de rechtvaardiging van de verdeling van de energiebronnen wordt niet zozeer bepaald door de zoektocht naar de optimale locatie, maar veelmeer door planning- en besluitvormingsprocessen. Het regionale energie rechtvaardigheid perspectief kan bepaald worden op basis van een berekening, maar dit onderzoek laat zien dat ook de gemeentelijke ambitie invloed heeft op de gemeentelijke bijdrage. Gemeenten zien het als hun morele verplichting om hun individuele en regionale verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. Daarnaast draagt de afweging tussen een kosten-efficiënte en een gelijke verdeling van energiebronnen over de regio, afhankelijk van de gemaakte afweging, bij aan een (on)eerlijke verdeling. De laatste factor die bijdraagt aan een rechtvaardige verdeling is het maken van afspraken over de verdeling van lusten en lasten op zowel de strategische, regionale schaal als op de uitvoerende schaal. Waar afspraken op de strategisch, regionale schaal bijdragen aan een rechtvaardige verdeling van het proces naar de RES 1.0 en RES 2.0 dragen afspraken op de uitvoerende schaal achteraf bij aan een rechtvaardiging van de verdeling. Naast de factoren die bijdragen aan een rechtvaardige verdeling, heeft dit onderzoek vijf factoren geïdentificeerd die bijdragen aan een rechtvaardig proces: transparantie, timing, ophalen van lokale informatie, toegang tot consultatie en democratische besluitvorming. Het transparant en tijdig delen van informatie en het ophalen van lokale informatie draagt bij aan de openheid van het proces en stelt stakeholders in staat om te participeren door bijeenkomsten bij te wonen. Een belangrijke keerzijde is dat, vanwege de korte doorlooptijd van de RES, de coördinatiegroep van de Cleantech regio genoodzaakt was om keuzes te maken die in conflict kunnen zijn met procedurele rechtvaardigheid. Vanwege de korte doorlooptijd was de organisatie van voldoende stakeholderbijeenkomsten en de mogelijkheid om bewoners te betrekken beperkt in deze fase van het proces. Het onderzoek laat zien dat democratische besluitvorming essentieel is voor de rechtvaardiging van het proces om het een bepaalde vorm van legitimiteit te geven. De discussies over rechtvaardigheid zullen een grotere rol gaan spelen in een latere fase van de RES als de zoekgebieden duidelijker worden en resulteren in concrete wind- en energieprojecten. In het proces van de RES 1.0 en de RES 2.0 zal een uitbreiding van de participatie leiden tot meer draagvlak, of ten minste acceptatie. Het is aan gemeenten, stakeholders en inwoners om samen het gezamenlijke doel te behalen en zowel de uitkomst als het proces van de RES te rechtvaardigen.
3 ABSTRACT (EN)
At this moment, the Netherlands is divided into 30 regions that all need to come up with a regional energy strategy (RES) and related regional energy bid. The regions exist out of several municipalities that all need to contribute with a certain amount of TWh to the regional energy bid. A clear guideline for the allocation of energy resources over the municipalities within a region is lacking and the experiences of municipalities about the justice of this allocation, as the result of the RES-process, is not analysed yet. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore if a just allocation of the municipal contribution, as the outcome of the RES-process, to the regional energy bid is experienced by the municipalities within the Regional Energy Strategy of the Clean-Tech region.
This research uses the concept of energy justice which provides an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of justice in two ways: distributive justice and procedural justice. The study first examines the current discourse about justice in the preliminary memoranda of selected RES-regions. Subsequently, the study examines the experience about the outcome of the allocation of energy resources and the process of the Regional Energy Strategy from the perspectives of municipalities in the case of the Clean-Tech region. This study uses a combination of content-analysis, survey and in- depth interviews to provide a substantiated answer to the research question: What fact-based and subjective factors constitute the regional energy justice perspective, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
Based on the research five factors are identified that constitute to a just allocation: landscape potential, municipal ambition, moral obligation, trade-off between equality and cost-efficiency and allocation of costs and benefits. The allocation of the energy task in the Cleantech region is based on the landscape potential that selects the most effective and suitable locations. However, the justification of the allocation of energy resources is less determined by the search of the optimal location, but more by planning and decision-making processes. The regional energy justice perspective can be defined based on a calculation, but this research shows that the municipal ambition also has an influence on the municipal contribution as municipalities consider it as their moral obligation to take their individual and regional responsibility. Next to this, the trade-off between a cost-efficient and equal way of energy resource distribution constitutes, dependent on the actual consideration, to a (un)just allocation. The last factor that constitutes to a just allocation is the development of clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits on the strategic regional scale and the operational scale. Whereas the agreements on the strategic regional scale constitute to a just allocation in the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0, the agreements on the operational scale might also constitute to a justification of the allocation afterwards.
Next to the factors that constitute a just allocation, this research identified five important factors that constitute a just process: transparency, timing, mobilisation of local information, access to consultation and democratic decision-making. The transparent and timely way of information sharing and the mobilisation of local information constitute to openness in the process and enables stakeholders to participate an attend to stakeholder meetings. A main drawback is that due to the short throughput time of the RES the coordination group of the Cleantech region was forced to make choices that are in conflict with procedural justice. Because of that, the organization of sufficient stakeholder meetings and the inclusion of inhabitants in order to express opinions or concerns was limited in this phase of the process. The research shows that democratic decision-making is essential for the justification of the process to give it a form of legitimacy. The discussions about justice will play a major role in a later stage of the RES as the searching areas become clearer. In the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0 the extension of participation will lead to more support, or at least acceptation. By means of this, municipalities, stakeholders and inhabitants cooperate to achieve the common objective and justify both the allocation and the process of the RES.
Keywords: Energy justice, energy allocation, distributive justice, procedural justice, Regional Energy Strategy, Clean-Tech Region
4
PREFACE
Voor u ligt mijn onderzoek naar de percepties over de rechtvaardigheid van de Regionale Energie Strategieën (RES) die momenteel in Nederland worden uitgerold in het kader van het Klimaatakkoord. Deze masterthesis is de afsluiting van de master Spatial Planning aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Binnen de master heb ik de specialisatie Cities, Water & Climate Change gevolgd om inzicht te krijgen in de energietransitie en de impact die het heeft op de ruimtelijke inrichting van Nederland. Voor het afstudeertraject heb ik stagegelopen bij adviesbureau Over Morgen in Amersfoort. Hier kreeg ik de mogelijkheid om van dichtbij het proces te volgen van de Regionale Energie Strategie in de Cleantech regio. Met het afronden van mijn masterscriptie komt er een einde aan mijn studie- en studententijd, maar tegelijkertijd breekt de tijd aan waarin ik mijn opgedane kennis en ervaring kan toepassen in de praktijk.
Met het schrijven van dit voorwaard wil ik van de gelegenheid gebruik maken om enkele mensen te bedanken voor hun bijdrage aan mijn onderzoek. Allereerst wil ik mijn scriptiebegeleidster Linda Carton bedanken voor de begeleiding, feedback en handige tips tijdens dit afstudeertraject. Daarnaast wil ik mijn stagebegeleidster Kirsten van de Meeberg bedanken voor de mogelijkheid om mee te kijken met het RES-proces in de Cleantech regio en voor alle feedback tijdens het onderzoek. Tot slot wil ik mijn vriendin, familie, vrienden en medestudenten bedanken voor hun steun en advies tijdens mijn afstudeerperiode.
Gerard Verweij,
Kloetinge, 2020
5
LIST WITH IMAGES, FIGURES AND TABLES
Images Image 1 Cover photo 1 Image 2 Logo Radboud University 2 Image 3 Logo Over Morgen 2
Figures Figure 1 Multi-phase and multi-level models 12 Figure 2 Multi-level framework for transitions 13 Figure 3 The three main aspects of energy justice 17 Figure 4 Schematic overview of the Collaborative Governance Regime 22 Figure 5 Conceptual framework with the principal relations between the main concepts 24 Figure 6 Schematic overview of the research model 28 Figure 7 The 30 RES-regions with a magnified view of the Clean-Tech region 31 Figure 8 Selected RES-regions for the content-analysis 35 Figure 9 Survey question 5, survey question 7.1, survey question 7.2 and survey question 7.3 40 Figure 10 Survey question 7.4 and survey question 7.5 42 Figure 11 Survey question 10 and survey question 11.2 44 Figure 12 Map with the searching areas for wind energy and map with the promising 44 hectares for solar energy in the Clean-Tech region Figure 13 Survey question 15.1 and survey question 17.1 47 Figure 14 Survey question 15.2 and survey question 17.2 48 Figure 15 Survey question 15.3 and survey question 17.3 48 Figure 16 Survey question 15.4 and survey question 17.4 49 Figure 17 Survey question 15.5 and survey question 18.2 50 Figure 18 Survey question 15.6 and survey question 18.3 50 Figure 19 Survey question 15.7 survey question 18.4 51 Figure 20 Survey question 15.8 and survey question 19.1 52 Figure 21 Survey question 15.9 and survey question 19.2 52 Figure 22 Indicators that shows to what extent the respondents agreed with the statements 53 Figure 23 Indicators that shows to what extent the indicators constitute to a just process 54
Tables Table 1 Costs and benefits 18 Table 2 Distributive principles 19 Table 3 Allocation strategies 19 Table 4 Information sharing 20 Table 5 Consultation process 21 Table 6 Decision-making 22 Table 7 The three components of the collaborative dynamics with related characteristics 23 Table 8 Operationalisation 25 Table 9 Selected RES-regions for the content-analysis 29 Table 10 Distributive justice with the related indicators and Dutch translation 29 Table 11 Procedural justice with the related indicators and Dutch translation 29 Table 12 Frequency of the indicators of distributive justice 36 Table 13 Frequency of the indicators of distributive justice 36 Table 14 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 39 Table 15 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 46 for a just allocation Table 16 List with indicators that are important, less important or least important for a just 54 process Table 17 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 56 Table 18 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 56 for a just allocation Table 19 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 58 for a just process Table 20 Advanced theoretical framework for regional energy justice 65
6
CONTENT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Research problem statement 9 1.2 Research aim and research question 10 1.3 Relevance 11 1.4 Reading guide 12 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 13 2.1 Energy Transition 13 2.2 Allocation of energy resources 15 2.3 Perspectives on justice 16 2.4 Energy justice as a theoretical framework 18 2.5 Collaborative governance 22 2.6 Conceptual framework 25 2.7 Operationalisation 25 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 27 3.1 Research philosophy 27 3.2 Research strategy and -model 27 3.3 Research methods, data collection and data analysis 29 3.4 Case study Clean-Tech Region 32 3.5 Validity and reliability 34 CHAPTER 4: DISCOURSE ABOUT JUSTICE 35 4.1 Introduction 35 4.2 Results key-word search 35 4.3 Qualitative section 36 4.4 Conclusion 39 CHAPTER 5: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 40 5.1 Introduction 40 5.2 Distributive principles 40 5.3 Costs and benefits 42 5.4 Allocation strategies 43 5.5 Regional justice 45 5.6 Local justice 45 5.7 Ambition 46 5.8 Conclusion 46
7
CHAPTER 6: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE 47 6.1 Introduction 47 6.2 Information sharing 47 6.3 Consultation 49 6.4 Decision-making process 51 6.5 Conclusion 53 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND REFLECTION 55 7.1 Conclusion 55 7.2 Reflection 60 7.3 New theory development 63 7.4 Recommendations 66 REFERENCES 67 APPENDIX 72
8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research problem statement
The reason for this research is the process of the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) that currently is executed in the Netherlands. The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) is one of the executive programs of the national agreements in the Climate Agreement (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, 2019). Within the RES-regions governments, together with societal partners, grid operators, companies and citizens, decide upon regionally supported choices for the generation of sustainable electricity, the heat transition in the built environment (from fossil to sustainable energy resources) and the needed storage- and energy-infrastructure. To reach the goal of 35 TWh, also known as route 35, the 30 RES-regions need to come up with an energy-bid of the amount of TWh the region is aiming to generate. The 30 RES-regions exist out of several municipalities that all need to contribute with a certain amount of TWh to the regional bid.
A clear guideline from the national government for the distribution of the municipal contributions to the regional bid is lacking. Therefore, regions use several methods to allocate the amount of TWh over the region. One method for the allocation is the Energy Transition Model of Quintel that uses three allocation keys: energy use, number of citizens and land area. This is a first quick-scan of the spatial conditions of the municipalities. Within the RES-processes, the regions use integral consideration criteria for the allocation of energy resources within the region. These integral consideration criteria are described in the Afwegingskader RES 1.1 (Nationaal Programma RES, 2019) as: quantity of electricity, quantity of heat, optimal land use, administrative and societal support and energy system efficiency. In practice, the RES-regions are free to formulate their own consideration criteria that fit with the region-specific approach.
There is a mismatch between the energy use and energy generation of municipalities, resulting in a surplus and a shortage in the energy balance. This asks for collaboration and coordination of the municipal contributions to the regional energy bid of the RES-regions (Stadszaken, 2019). The RES- process is in essence an allocation issue of the regional energy bid over the municipalities in a RES- region. To prevent issues of injustice and a concentration of ‘burdens’ and energy resources (wind and solar) in a specific region, the costs en benefits need to be divided in a just manner. However, urban municipalities can contribute less to the regional energy bid than rural municipalities, due to a lack of space. Therefore, the urban municipalities are dependent on rural areas to meet their energy demand (Groenendaal, 2020). This means in general that in the final regional energy bid rural municipalities contribute with a larger share than urban municipalities. Besides that, this implies that rural municipalities generate energy for their neighbouring urban municipalities.
It is not clear how (rural) municipalities can be persuaded to generate more sustainable energy than required for their (urban) neighbouring municipalities. Therefore, the current practice lacks in conditions to operate in the interest of the region. Municipalities that contribute more energy (in TWh) in the interest of the region, should receive a (financial) compensation (Groenendaal, 2020). As already stated, a clear guideline for the allocation of energy resources over a region is lacking. Therefore, it is not clear how the municipal contributions to the regional energy bid are distributed and if it is allocated in an equal way. Besides that, the experience of municipalities about the justice of the allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional bid and the process of the Regional Energy Strategy has not been analysed yet. If an experienced just allocation of the energy resources over the region and insight into this allocation is lacking, the expectation is that this could lead to discontent between urban and rural municipalities and a hampering in the decision-making process.
9
1.2 Research aim and research question
1.2.1 Research aim
Because the experience of municipalities about the justice of the allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional bid has not been analysed yet, the objective of this research is as follows:
‘The overall aim of this research is to explore to what extent a just allocation of the municipal contribution, as the outcome of the RES-process, to the regional energy bid is experienced by the municipalities within the Regional Energy Strategy of the Clean-Tech region.
On base of this diagnosis, a possible bycatch of this research is the exploration of solutions that contribute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional bid. These solutions can possibly lead to an enhancement of the level of experienced justice in relation to the level of experienced justice as identified with the diagnosis of this research, which is the main objective of this research.
1.2.2 Research question
On base of the main research question and corresponding sub questions the attempt is to achieve the aim of this research. The main question is formulated as follows:
What fact-based and subjective factors constitute the regional energy justice perspective, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
In this research, the regional energy justice perspective exists out of two aspects. The first aspect is a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid (resp. distributive justice). The second aspect is the experience of justice of the process (resp. procedural justice).
The sub questions that contribute to the answering of to the main question are formulated as follows:
1. What factors can be derived from scientific literature that constitute to energy justice? 2. How is justice described in the policy documents of the RES-regions? 3. What factors explain the experience of distributive justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region? 4. What factors explain the experience of procedural justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
10
1.3 Relevance
The examination of the experience of justice and the factors that constitute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid, is societally and scientifically relevant.
1.3.1 Societal relevance
This study is in three ways societally relevant. First, this research investigates the experience about the justice of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region. This is important, because insights in the experience of justice can avoid issues of dissatisfactions, frictions and spatial shifting between municipalities. Second, an equitable allocation of energy resources (TWh) between municipalities in an energy region is important for the feasibility of the RES-process. A higher justification of the outcome (regional bid) will eventually lead to a higher support and feasibility of the RES-process. This is explained by Sovacool & Dworkin (2015) that state that ‘consideration of the justice dimensions of energy policy decisions is a vital decision- making tool that can assist policy-makers, planners and regulators in making fully informed and comprehensive choices’.
Second, this research provides insight in the justification of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid. This is important for the process of the RES from the concept-versions towards the definitive versions (RES 1.0). This, because it is important to reflect on the appropriate spatial allocation and division of the municipal contributions in an early stage, because it is difficult to reallocate the energy resources once they are built (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019). Lastly, aldermen are expected to inform the municipal council and if the aldermen experience forms of injustice, in both process as distribution, they are not able to justify the outcome. The overall societal aim is to investigate the experience of justice within the RES-processes.
1.3.2 Scientific relevance
In recent years, energy justice became an emerging approach which seeks to apply aspects of justice to the field of energy policy and energy transition (Jenkins et al., 2015). In the literature, energy justice is mostly applied to themes as energy poverty, energy deprivation, fuel poverty and energy security access (Bouzarovski & Simcock, 2017; Jenkins et al. 2015; Walker & Day, 2012). The focus of those studies is on the operational scale (Loorbach et al., 2008) and focuses on households as the main actors. The innovative aspect of this study is the application of energy (in)justice on the tactical and strategic scale level (Loorbach et al., 2008) and the focus on different actors (municipalities) than usually is the case. Therefore, this research investigates the issue of experienced (in)justice between municipalities (local scale) in a RES-region (regional scale) and thereby contributes to the existing knowledge and meaning of energy justice.
A starting point for this study is the study of Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) that investigates two allocation strategies of energy resources: cost-efficient and regionally equitable allocation. However, these strategies are investigated out of the distributive aspect of energy justice, while the procedural aspect of energy justice, as described by McCauley et al. (2013), is not taken into consideration. Besides that, the study is done out of a technological model approach and lacks the description of experiences of those allocation strategies. For a comprehensive assessment of the justice of the energy resource allocation, this study includes the procedural aspect of energy justice next to distributive justice. The importance of this is confirmed by Grunewald (2017) who states that in practice the allocation of energy resources is less determined by the search of the optimal location but more by planning and decision-making processes.
11
Besides that, this study inserts the spatial aspect of the energy transition, because most transition theories analyse transition out of an institutional perspective whereas the spatial context (e.g. space) and the social and economic relations between locations within a region is lacking, as stated by Coenen et al. (2012). The RES can be described as a ‘good example of taking into account the spatial context and implications within the (energy) transition. Furthermore, the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) can be considered as a new approach to deal with climate mitigation and CO2 reduction. The RES is a cross- municipal cooperation that aims to find solutions across the borders of the own municipality. This study aims to add knowledge to the local-regional cooperation process in combination with spatial dimensions of the energy transition in scientific literature.
1.4 Reading guide
In chapter 1 the context and relevance of the research is introduced. In chapter 2 the theoretical framework is described resulting in a conceptual framework and a operationalisation of the indicators that are used in this research.
In chapter 3 the methodology of this research is explained. The research philosophy, research strategy and its associated research methods are described. This chapter also includes a short introduction of the case-study and the validity and reliability of the research is explained.
In chapter 4 the discourse of justice is examined based on a content-analysis of the preliminary memoranda of selected RES-regions in order to provide an answer to the second sub question. In chapter 5 the distributive aspect of energy justice is explained based on the results obtained from the survey and interviews. In chapter 6 the procedural aspect of energy justice is explained based on the results obtained from the survey and interviews.
Finally, the conclusions and reflection are described in chapter 7. In this chapter answers are provided to the sub questions and the main question. Subsequently a critical reflection is made, and recommendations are formulated.
12
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Energy Transition
In the debate about climate change, a main distinction is made between two interrelated strategies: climate mitigation and adaptation. These strategies have a common goal, namely, to minimize the impact of climate change on both humans and on the natural and building environment. The strategy of climate adaptations aims to increase the adaptive capacity of both society and environment, while the strategy of climate mitigation aims to reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions (Duguma et al., 2014). One of the strategies to decrease the amount of GHG, is the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy resources, also known as the energy transition (Creutzig et al., 2014). There are two main perspectives to look at the energy transition: from an institutional perspective and from a transition management perspective.
First, the institutional perspective on energy transition is relevant because the energy transition is a political-driven change, energy is in the public interest and lots of actors and interests are involved in this change. The energy sector can be considered as a socio-technical regime that consist out of institutions that develop and use energy-related technologies (Andrews-Speed, 2015). The energy transition therefore can be observed as a form of socio-technical transition that has implications for the institutions involved. The process of transition is subject to unpredictable changes and an uncertain future. According to Andrews-Speed (2015), transitions can take over 50 years till 100 years to occur, because of the trail-and-error nature of transitions.
Hendriks (2008) analyses the inclusivity of network governance in the Dutch energy transition and concludes that most of the networks exist out of a relationship between government and industrial stakeholders. These partnerships are lacking responsiveness, accountability and lawfulness. In order to be more inclusive and democratic, networks should focus and invest in participation. Interests of the broader public can be taken in consideration in the decision-making process by the involvement of representatives of civil society. The networks can be more open by providing resources and opportunities for all the stakeholders involved and by an internal transformation of the networks to inclusive networks that invest in participation and listen to the interests of all involved actors.
Figure 1: Multi-phase and multi-level models. Source: Rotmans (2001)
The theory of multi-level governance can also be applied to the energy transition (figure 1, right). Changes in the energy sector arrive from the landscape level, technological niches and from within the regime (Rotmans, 2001; Geels, 2011). Pressure of the landscape level can come from all government levels and in the context of the energy transition, climate change is a pressure of the landscape level.
13
A change within the energy sector is the development and application of a new technology (Andrews- Speed, 2015). Rotmans (2001) also describes the four stages that characterizes a transition, namely the phase of pre-development, take-off, breakthrough and stabilization (figure 1, left).
Second, the transition management perspective looks at the energy transition from a management perspective. Loorbach is a key author in transition management regarding the energy transition (Loorbach et al., 2008). Five energy transition management principles are designed to stimulate societal innovation to make the energy sector more sustainable (Loorbach, 2010): approach the energy system as a complex adaptive system in its environment, deal with uncertainty, approach the transition as a multi-actor problem-solving process, stimulate new combinations and be reflexive in the management approach. Besides these principles, Loorbach (2010) also designed a multi-level framework for transition management existing out of three levels. The strategic level is the stage where visions are developed, and strategic discussions of long-term goal take place. The tactical level is characterised by negotiating, networking and goal setting. The operational level has an executive character existing out of setting up projects and implementing new ideas. A good example of the strategic level is ‘guiding visions’. Späth & Rohracher (2010) describes the existence of ‘energy regions’ operating on a regional level and acting as a podium where ‘guiding visions’ can be developed to steer the region to a sustainable and low carbon society. Guiding visions are an instrument for agenda building processes, an import medium for coordination and an opportunity to translate abstract (national) visions into concrete actions within the regional context. In addition to this, ‘guiding visions’ switch between levels and institutional spheres and are a way to mobilize actors.
Figure 2: Multi-level framework for transitions. Source: Loorbach et al. (2008)
However, Coenen en al. (2012) stated that transition theories mostly analyse transition out of an institutional perspective, whereas the spatial context and the social relations between places is lacking. Bridge et al. (2013) describe the energy transition as a geographical process with spatial patterns, social relations and economic activities. This concept of Bridge et al. (2013) is called ‘geographies of energy transition’ which refers to the distribution of energy-related activities over space, the relation between spaces and the systematics behind this spatial pattern. The concept shows the relation between the spatial context and the energy transition with six aspects: location (a), landscape (b), territoriality (c), spatial differentiation and uneven development (d), scale (e), spatial embeddedness and path dependency (f).
Location is a concept that can be considered in an absolute sense and a relative sense, whereby the first relates to a fixed place in space and the last relates to the relation and proximity between places. The energy system has a spatial element, because the elements of the system (e.g. consumption, production) occupy locations. Landscape in relation to the energy transition, is well-known with the term ‘energy landscape’. This is a landscape with spatial constructions (e.g. windmills, solar panels, energy centrals) and activities concerning the processes of energy (e.g. production, distribution and
14 consumption). The landscape is the spatial result of social processes and decision-making. Landscape relates to the material characteristics, but also to social and cultural values in terms of visual aesthetics and spatial quality.
The aspect of territoriality and spatial differentiation and uneven development is the most relevant to the research topic of justice and an equitable allocation of energy resources. The aspect of territoriality is about the social and political power related to the spatial environment. Energy systems are territorialized by political policies of several scales that make decisions about the construction and functioning of the energy system (Bridge et al., 2013). Based on the aspect of location, landscape and territoriality spatial variations may occur and together with the energy transition result in spatial differentiation and uneven development between locations (Bridge et al., 2013). In the energy transition the risk is present that, due to policy support to specific locations, some locations are more able to build energy resources, which can result in spatial differences between locations in a wider region. Concrete effects of this uneven development are the clustering of energy resources, investments and jobs. The energy transition towards a low-carbon economy is a process that changes the relations between places on economic, political and cultural level and could lead to spatial (unequal) differences (Coenen et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to develop justice principles to tackle injustice and inequalities between locations in a wider energy region (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019). This relates to the theoretical framework of justice that will be discussed in paragraph 2.4.
Scale refers to the size and impact of renewable energy resources on local, regional and national scale. The local scale is the application of energy resources on the household level, while the regional scale entails projects of wind parks that occupy parts of the landscape. This refers not only to the scale of energy resources, but also to the scales of political structures, both local, regional and national governments. Embeddedness and path dependency are defined as ‘the sunk costs of capital investment and the place-based cultures of consumption that surround certain energy technologies’ (Bridge et al., 2013).
2.2 Allocation of energy resources
A further elaboration of the aspect of spatial differentiation and uneven development, as described by Bridge et al. (2013), is the theory about energy resource allocation that examines the underlying mechanisms for this spatial differentiation and uneven development. In the literature on energy resource allocation there is a distinction between two main strategies: cost-efficient allocation and regionally equitable allocation (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019). Both strategies have positive and negative impacts on society, finance and technical infrastructure. A cost-efficient allocation of energy resources increases the generation of electricity at the expense of a minimum of generation costs. A main negative result of this strategy is the concentration or clustering of energy resources on locations with the best weather conditions. Furthermore, it is proven that the focus on cost-efficient allocation of energy resources not always contributes to the efficiency of the whole system (Grunewald, 2017; Drechsler et al., 2017). A cost-efficient allocation can therefore be considered as a regionally uneven allocation of energy resources.
A regionally uneven allocation of energy resources, investments and policy support could raise societal resistance (Klagge & Brocke, 2012) or increase the hampering of policy implementation (Fell et al., 2019). A regionally equitable allocation of energy resources is a strategy that is desirable to decrease the risk of societal resistance and achieve an equal allocation and spreading of costs and benefits on the whole society. Besides that, a focus on regional equity is able to facilitate the attention to local needs (Fell et al., 2019). A regional equal allocation of energy resources also contains technological advantages. First, an equal allocation of energy resources results in a decrease of new transmission lines because supply and demand are close located to each other (Budischak et al., 2013). Second, an
15 equal allocation of energy resources makes the whole system less dependent on local weather conditions (Grams et al., 2017). However, in practice the allocation of energy resources is less determined by the search of the optimal location but more by planning and decision-making processes (Grunewald, 2017).
Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) examined the consideration between regional equitable and cost-efficient allocation (least costs) of decentralized renewable electricity generation (DREG). DREG consists out of wind, solar PV, biomass and hydropower. Based on an electricity system model, a correlation is found between regional equity and the total amount of electricity generation costs. The regional equity of Swiss increases with 50% when the energy resources are allocated to the regions, based on population or electricity demand, with an increase of 18% of the total generation costs. Therefore, a more regional equal allocation of DREG resources can be achieved by accepting higher generation costs. Furthermore, the study of Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) found that the allocation with least costs entails a clustering of energy resources to a limited number of productive locations. Lastly, the study concludes that a regional equitable allocation can be achieved by promoting solar PV, because of the small trade-offs in generation costs and the expected decrease in costs. Solar PV is less location-based and can be applied in diverse regions in contrast to other DREG sources as wind, biomass or hydropower.
The energy demand and supply of urban and rural areas follows a general pattern. In general, the energy demand is the highest in the urban areas and decreases towards the rural areas with lower population densities. The sustainable energy supply follows in general the opposite effect, namely the sustainable energy supply is the highest in rural areas and decreases towards the cities and more urban areas (Kroll et al., 2012). This can be explained by the fact that urban areas are less suitable for the generation of renewable energy (solar and wind energy), because of a lack of space. The urban environment with high building and population densities leaves less space available for wind turbines. The rural areas, characterised with low population densities and low building densities, are appropriate places for the generation of renewable energy on, or in combination with, farmland, nature and bodies of water. Next to this, the built environment has lower average wind speeds and is therefore less profitable for the generation of wind energy (Mertens, 2002). However, urban areas are highly suitable for photovoltaic panels on roofs (Freitas et al., 2015). In general, urban areas are more dependent on rural areas for the generation of renewable energy than vice versa.
2.3 Perspectives on justice
Because this research examines the factors that constitute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution the regional energy bid, literature about allocation strategies (as described in the previous section) and literature about justice is required to provide a substantiated answer to the research question. The scientific literature encompasses different perspectives and concepts of justice. In this section the main concepts on justice are described: urban justice, spatial justice, environmental justice and energy justice. The concept of energy justice is used as a theoretical framework for this research. Therefore, this concept is discussed in a separate section (2.4).
The first notions of justice came from Lefebvre (1967) who defined space as a social construction and stated that all inhabitants of a city have a ‘right to the city’. The discussion about ‘urban justice’ in terms of property development and community struggle emerged. Harvey (2010) stated that space, social justice and urbanism are no separate themes, but should be examined in close relation to each other. The concept of the right to the city, as described by Lefebvre, is followed by a group of scientists that realised that the just city is not only about the distribution of goods, but also about participation issues (Marcuse, 2009). In this respect, planners made concerns about the absence of low-income groups in the decision-making process (Arnstein, 1969).
16
John Rawls (1971), another key author in the frame of urban justice, describe the ‘difference principle’, stating that actions are only justified when the improvement of the situation of the wealthy people is not at the expense of the less wealthy people. This principle relates to the position of egalitarianism. After this first discussion about ‘urban justice’ the scientific discourse developed towards more concrete forms of justice, consisting out of three main approaches: communicative reality, recognition of diversity and the just city/spatial justice. The main differences between the communicative reality and spatial justice/just city is the contradiction between on the one hand, democracy and equity and on the other hand, process versus outcome (Fainstein, 2014). Furthermore, Fainstein (2014) argued that democracy, diversity and equity are the three basic elements for urban justice. Democracy is about the involvement of people in the decision-making process. The role of the planner is to listen to the several interests and to come up with a consensus, without preferring the interest of one particular group. Fainstein (2014) stated that policies should be in the benefit of low-income groups in order to raise the level of justice. Diversity entails the recognition of the different groups with different needs, resulting in a mix of land uses and building types. Lastly, equity is about developing policies to reduce injustice and therefore, this principle refers the most to the concept of justice. Fainstein (2014) points to the fact that there is a tension between these principles with favour to the principle of equity. The main statement of Fainstein (2014) is to change the focus of urban policy on competition towards justice by designing policies that also benefit disadvantaged social groups.
Next to urban justice, the concept of spatial justice focuses on the geographical aspects of inequality and aims to find spatial patterns (Soja, 2010; Yenneti et al., 2016). Within the concept of spatial justice, Harvey (2010) formulated the principle of territorial justice: resources should be distributed ‘such that the prospects of the least advantaged territory are as great as they can be’. This principle, that contributes to an increased level of justice, is nuanced by Bouzarovski & Simcock (2017) that state that a narrow focus on the improvement of justice on the local level can lead to injustice on the regional scale or even the national scale. This can result in spatial inequalities, uneven development between locations within a region or strained social relations. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the scale level during the analysis of distributive justice.
Lastly, environmental justice is a theoretical concept but also a focus of (political) activism. The core concern of environmental justice is about the distribution of industrial sites, which causes both pollution and waste, and the specific location next to local neighbourhoods. According to Walker (2009) environmental justice is mostly focused on the distributional aspect of justice but lacks a broader scope on procedural aspects that lead to environmental injustices. Therefore, Walker (2009) introduces an extended view on environmental justice beyond distributional aspects by including also the procedural and recognition aspect of justice. The combination of distributional justice, procedural justice and recognition justice is a generally accepted approach in the literature about energy justice (McCauley et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016). Because of this, this research uses the literature on energy justice as the guiding theoretical framework to frame the further data-analysis.
17
2.4 Energy justice as a theoretical framework
The application of justice theories to energy systems and the associated energy transition is gaining more scientific attention. This can be explained by the increase of human-centred approaches towards challenges in the energy sector. The combination of justice theories to the broad scope of energy- related research fields is known with the concept of ‘energy justice’ (Jenkins et al., 2016). Energy justice can be considered as a conceptual tool to integrate distributive, recognition and procedural justice, but also as an analytical tool to understand values of energy systems and to solve specific energy problems. Lastly, energy justice can also be considered as a decision-making tool to make reasoned energy choices (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015). Therefore, energy justice is defined as ‘a global energy system that fairly disseminates both the benefits and costs of energy services, and one that has representative and impartial energy decision-making’ (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015).
The concept of energy justice, according to the conceptual tool, consists out of three main aspects: distributive justice, procedural justice and justice of recognition (McCauley et al., 2013; Finley-Brook & Holloman, 2016) (figure 3). Jenkins et al. (2016) state that if a society aims to tackle injustice it needs to follow a certain order. First, it needs to examine the distribution of the resources and benefits and burdens (resp. distributional justice), then the groups that are affected by this allocation (resp. recognition-based justice) and lastly to design strategies to solve the issue of injustice (resp. procedural justice).
Figure 3: The three main aspects of energy justice. Source: Finley-Brook & Holloman (2016)
Before the three aspect of energy justice are explained a definition of ‘experience’ is important because this research investigates the experiences of justice. Daher et al. (2017) define experience as a crucial concept to get a deeper understanding of the perspective of a participant. Furthermore, experience exists out of an inner experience (feeling and will) and an experience of the other participants and the surrounding world. In this research, justice is the object that is experienced by the respondents. Justice is a social construction that lives in the minds of the respondents and therefore is a non-physical reality (Tyler, 2000).
2.4.1 Distributive justice
Distributive justice relates to the fairness in the outcome of the decision-making process (Jenkins et al., 2016). Therefore, this aspect describes the experience about the allocation of energy resources, as the result of the decision-making process. The outcomes can be material (infrastructure), public goods (e.g. clean air) or negative consequences (e.g. visual pollution) (Mundaca et al., 2018). Therefore, it aims to achieve an even distribution of costs and benefits of both energy production and consumption on all groups of society without having a look to income or social-cultural groups (Schlosberg, 2003; Jenkins et al., 2016). The distributional aspect of justice examines the unequal distribution of resources and costs and benefits over space, but also the relation between the application of new technologies and specific conditions of locations.
18
An example of distributive justice is the location of wind turbines. Wind turbines are unevenly distributed over a territory due to the requirement for appropriate wind conditions. This implies that some regions have to deal with both burdens and also benefits of wind turbines, whereas other regions only profit from the benefits. Mundaca et al. (2018) stated that also the distribution of subsidies, investments costs, ownership profits, development opportunities and the energy bills are also examples of distributive (in)justice. Besides the focus of distributional justice on the specific location of energy infrastructure, the physical access to energy services is also an important aspect of distributional justice (e.g. heating, electricity) (McCauley et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016). In the process of the information sharing, consultation and decision-making the stakeholders create an opinion about justice wherein the outcomes of the process are found to be more important than the process (Mundaca et al., 2018). This relates to the third aspect of justice: procedural justice. Lastly, Mundaca et al. (2018) address the fact that compensation measures or other mechanisms to reduce the impact (e.g. taxes, financial compensation) are useful to bridge the gap between winners and losers.
According to Mundaca et al. (2018) the costs of renewable energy sources (e.g. solar park and wind park) are divided into environmental, financial and social costs. Environmental costs are related to impact on the spatial quality and the ecosystem (Späth, 2018). Financial costs relate to the increases in the energy price that consumer have to pay (Jenkins et al., 2016). Social costs relate to the aesthetics and change in the direct living environment of citizens (Späth, 2018). The same classification can be applied to the benefits of renewable energy sources. Environmental benefits relate to the reduction in the emission of CO2. Financial benefits imply revenues of local ownership, use of subsidies and compensation for the burdens of the energy resources. Lastly, social benefits are improvements in the living comfort of homeowners due to the investment in the living environment as part of compensation measures (Mundaca et al., 2018). Agreements about costs and benefits are important aspects that constitute to a just allocation on both the strategic scale as the operational scale and therefore are selected as indicators for this research (see table 1).
Indicator Definition Sources Allocation of costs The distribution of negative burdens on all groups of society, ▪ Mundaca et al. existing out of: (2018) ▪ Environmental costs (impairment of spatial quality, ▪ Schlosberg (2013) nature and ecosystem) ▪ ▪ Financial costs (societal (network) costs) Jenkins et al. (2016) ▪ Social costs (shadow disturbance, sound ▪ Späth (2018) disturbance, horizon pollution) Allocation of benefits The distribution of positive profits on all groups of society, ▪ Mundaca et al. existing out of: (2018) ▪ Environmental benefits (CO2-emission reduction) ▪ Schlosberg (2013) ▪ Financial benefits (financial participation: local ▪ Jenkins et al. (2016) ownership, compensation, area fund) ▪ Social benefits (improvement living comfort, employment) Table 1: Costs and benefits (source: own work)
Furthermore, Höhne et al. (2014) identified four equity aspects for distributional justice: equality, cost- efficiency, capability and responsibility. Equality is about an equal division of benefits and burdens over society, place and time (Dworkin, 2000). Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) defined regional equality as ‘the spatially even distribution of DREG electricity generation’. The principle of cost-efficiency is the maximal energy resources for the least amount of costs. The capability principle is the ‘ability’ to pay for climate mitigation. Therefore, Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) state that it is more equal if capable regions (with a large area and high number of citizens) contribute more to the realisation of the energy task. Lastly, the responsibility principle states that regions that use more energy, have to contribute to a larger part of energy resources than regions that use less energy. Capability and responsibility are
19 important principles for the distribution of the energy tasks and therefore are selected as indicators for this research (see table 2).
Indicator Definition Sources Capability Capable municipalities, with higher number of citizens and ▪ Höhne et al. (2014); Sasse land area, contribute more to the realisation of the energy & Trutnevyte (2019) task due to a higher capacity Responsibility Municipalities that use more energy take the responsibility ▪ Höhne et al. (2014) to contribute to a larger part of the energy task than municipalities that use less energy Table 2: Distributive principles (source: own work)
Next to these distributive principles, the aspect of equality and cost-efficiency are important to include in this research because it examines the spatial distribution or concentration of energy resources in a region (see table 3).
Indicator Definition Sources Equality Spatially even distribution of electricity generation, ▪ Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) resulting in a spreading of energy resources (solar and wind) over a region. Cost-efficiency Spatially uneven distribution of electricity generation, ▪ Höhne et al. (2014); Sasse resulting in a concentration of energy resources (solar and & Trutnevyte (2019) wind) in a region. Table 3: Allocation strategies (source: own work)
2.4.2 Recognition justice
Recognition justice is about the degree of recognition socio-cultural groups receive (Schlosberg, 2003). The recognition entails the right for free choice, equal political rights and a fair representation in councils. Fraser (2015) identifies three clusters of misrecognitions: cultural domination, non- recognition and disrespect. Cultural domination is the dominant influence of groups whereas non- recognition entails the incompetence to recognize certain socio-cultural groups and their needs. Disrespect ignores the needs of these groups or regards the knowledge of local people as ‘insufficient’ or ‘incorrect’. Mostly elderly people, that demand certain facilities and need more heat, are affected by this form of injustice (Jenkins et al., 2016). Furthermore, Fainstein (2014) developed three principles that connect with the aspect of recognition justice: democracy, diversity and equity. Democracy is about the involvement of people in the decision-making process. Diversity entails the awareness of the different groups with different needs, resulting in a mix of land uses and building types. Lastly, equity is about developing policies to reduce injustice and therefore, this principle refers the most to the concept of justice. The principle of democracy also fits with the concept of procedural justice.
As this research focuses on the perspectives of administrative municipalities on the justice of both the outcome (resp. distributive justice) and process (resp. procedural justice) of the Regional Energy Strategy the justice of recognition is less relevant for this research, because this mainly relates to the perspectives of local communities and citizens who are not included in the scope of this research. The focus on the distributive and procedural aspect of energy justice is in line with Sovacool & Dworkin (2015) who state that energy justice encompasses procedural and distributive aspects. This approach is also followed by several studies in the energy justice discourse (Mundaca et al., 2018; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Van den Bos & Vermunt, 1997; Gilliland, 1994).
20
2.4.3 Procedural justice
Procedural justice is about the fairness in the sharing of information, the consultation process and the decision-making processes (Schlosberg, 2003; Mundaca et al., 2018). These processes need to follow procedures that respect the opinions of stakeholders with an equitable approach. Fair decision-making is considered to be an essential condition for the legitimacy of the outcomes but is also a feeding ground for collaboration between stakeholders (Mundaca et al., 2018). Mundaca et al. (2018) made a categorisation of procedural justice existing out of the following aspects: information sharing, consultation process and decision-making. This categorisation is followed to structure the indicators of procedural justice. The aspect of decision-making is discussed in paragraph 2.5.
In the frame of information sharing, Jenkins et al. (2016) stated that a higher inclusion of stakeholders can be achieved by the disclosure of information and the mobilization of local knowledge. The disclosure of information points to the transparency and openness of information by governments in the process. This can be achieved by providing access to information through publication in letters, newspapers or online sources (websites). The mobilization of local knowledge needs a recognition of the value of local knowledge and an understanding how this knowledge can be used in a participatory way (Jenkins et al., 2016; Mundaca et al., 2018; Emerson et al., 2012). Besides that, the timeliness of information sharing is an important aspect of procedural justice. Information need to be shared in the beginning of the process, but also on regular moments during the process (Mundaca et al., 2018). The aspects disclosure of information, mobilization of local knowledge and timing are used as indicators to investigate information sharing, because these aspects together cover the process of information sharing. For the operationalisation and the understandability of these aspects the disclosure of information is formulated as transparency, timeliness of information sharing as timing and mobilization of local knowledge as local information (see table 4).
Indicator Definition Sources Transparency The openness of information-sharing in the process ▪ Jenkins et al. (2016) ▪ Mundaca (2018) Timing Timely informing stakeholders during the process in: ▪ Mundaca (2018) ▪ an early stage of the process, and: ▪ on regular moments in the process Local information Mobilization of local information by a(n): ▪ Jenkins et al. (2016) ▪ recognition of the value of local information ▪ Mundaca (2018) ▪ understanding how this information can be used ▪ Emerson et al. (2012) Table 4: Information sharing (source: own work)
In the frame of the consultation process, the access to consultation fosters democracy, but also encourages the mobilization of local knowledge (Mundaca et al., 2018). It is important that stakeholders have access in the processes about the allocation of energy resources. This includes that participants are invited to attend stakeholder meetings. Next to access to consultation it is important that stakeholders participate in the process and receive the ability to be heard. This means that stakeholders get the possibility to express opinions, interests, and concerns during the process (Mundaca et al., 2018). Next to access to consultation, the institutional representation is an essential aspect in the consultation process. Institutional representation refers to an equal representation and inclusion of stakeholders in the consultation- process, varying from business to governments and civil society (Jenkins et al., 2016; Leventhal, 1980). Lastly, shared motivation is the personal drive to achieve a common objective, as the result of mutual trust, mutual understanding, internal legitimacy and commitment (Emerson et al., 2012). This will be further explained in paragraph 2.5 because this aspect is part of the Collaborative Governance Regime of Emerson et al. (2012) as explained in that paragraph.
For the operationalisation, internal legitimacy (as part of shared motivation) is excluded from this research as trust and mutual understanding lead to internal legitimacy of the process. Access to
21 consultation, Institutional representation, the ability to be heard and shared motivation are selected as indicators for this research because these aspects are important for the achievement of social acceptance and support for the outcome of the consultation process (Mundaca et al., 2018; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015; Jenkins et al., 2016). The ability to be heard is because of the understandability of this concept formulated as participation (see table 5).
Indicator Definition Sources Access to Invitation to and attendance at stakeholder meetings ▪ Mundaca (2018) consultation Participation Possibility to express opinions, interests, and concerns ▪ Mundaca (2018) during the process Institutional An equal representation and inclusion of stakeholders in ▪ Jenkins et al. (2016) representation the consultation process ▪ Leventhal (1980) Shared motivation Personal drive to achieve a common objective, as the ▪ Emerson et al. (2012) result of: ▪ Mutual trust ▪ Mutual understanding ▪ Commitment Table 5: Consultation process (source: own work)
2.5 Collaborative governance
As procedural justice relates to inclusive and transparent decision-making processes a governance perspective is essential for a further understanding of cross-boundary governance processes with stakeholders from governments, markets and civil society. In the governance literature, collaborative governance is one of the theories that especially takes a look at the cross-boundary governance processes between governmental actors and non-governmental actors. Emerson et al. (2012) define collaborative governance as ‘the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished’. The collaborative governance regime is chosen as a theoretical concept in this concept, because the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) is a cross-boundary governance process between governmental and non-governmental actors to achieve a common purpose (the regional energy bid) that could not be achieved if the actors did not collaborate.
The Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) of Emerson et al. (2012) provides a conceptual framework of collaborative governance and is valuable in understanding regional collaboration with governmental actors, nongovernmental actors and public-private cooperation’s (figure 4). This framework is a valuable addition to the theory of energy justice (Jenkins et al., 2016: McCauley et al., 2013), because it includes both procedural elements (procedural justice) as outcome (distributional justice). The framework exists out of a system context and the Collaborative Governance Regime with the collaboration dynamics and actions (figure 4). The actions can lead to outcomes both within the CGR (impacts) as outside the CGR (adaptation). The system context are political, legal, socio-economic and environmental conditions that shape the context for the collaboration process. The system context results in drivers (leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence and uncertainty) that stimulate the CGR. In the energy transition, uncertainty and interdependence are two important drivers for a collaboration process, because the energy transition has to deal with uncertainty and can only be accomplished when several actors work together (Loorbach, 2008). The collaborative dynamics exist out of three components: principled engagement, shared motivation and capacity for joint action (table 7).
22
Figure 4: Schematic overview of the Collaborative Governance Regime (Source: Emerson et al., 2012)
Principled engagement is the basic principle that entails an open, inclusive and fair discourse wherein all relevant stakeholders and interests are represented (Innes & Booher, 1999). Principled engagement stimulates stakeholders to think across their own institutional boundaries in order to solve mutual problems or challenges. In this respect it is important to get the ‘right’ people to the table because multiple perspectives and several interests result in more informed choices (Beierle & Cayford, 2002). Daniels and Walker (2001) defined four basic process elements that take place in principled engagement: discovery, definition, deliberation and determinations. Discovery is the exploration of individual and shared interest resulting in shared interests, whereas the definition process defines common purposes. Deliberation is about a conversation that invites the share of challenges and disagreements in order to express the underlying thoughts. Lastly, the final stage of principled engagement is the determination by making procedural decisions (e.g. agenda-setting, planning for discussion) and substantive decisions (e.g. agreements on actions and objectives). Finally, in democratic decision-making plans are determined by the responsible (city) council and possibilities are provided to submit several perspectives (Morrell, 2005). Furthermore, it is important that decisions are based on technical knowledge, obtained from joint-fact finding and knowledge building (Karl et al., 2007; Emerson et al., 2012). This is also called data-driven decision-making (Emerson et al., 2012). As the consultation process is followed by the decision-making process this research uses the aspects of data-driven decision-making and democratic decision-making as indicators for this research (see table 6).
Indicator Definition Sources Data-driven decision- Decisions are based on technical knowledge, obtained ▪ Karl et al. (2007) making from joint-fact finding, shared knowledge and knowledge ▪ Emerson et al. (2012) building Democratic decision- Determination of plans by the city council and possibility ▪ Morrell (2005) making to submit several perspectives. ▪ Emerson et al. (2012) Table 6: Decision-making (source: own work)
23
The second element of collaborative dynamics is shared motivation, as already discussed in paragraph 2.4.3. Shared motivation is the personal drive to achieve a common objective, as the result of mutual trust, mutual understanding, internal legitimacy and commitment (Emerson et al., 2012). Trust appears when stakeholders work together and create a sense of confidence in each other. In result, trust can lead to stable relationships between stakeholders, exchange of knowledge and understanding of each other values and interests. Therefore, trust stimulates mutual understanding that refers to the ability to understand the perspectives of others. Trust and mutual understanding are an important condition for the internal legitimacy of the process and leads to commitment to a shared path.
The last element of the collaborative dynamics is capacity for joint action (Emerson et al., 2012). Eventually, the result of collaboration is to realize outcomes that could not have been realised if stakeholders worked separately. Therefore, it creates a sense of capacity for joint action existing out of procedural and institutional agreements, leadership, knowledge and resources. Procedural and institutional agreements include process and organisation structures (e.g. decision rules, operating rules and regulations) that secure a continuous procedural organisation. Leadership is also an important factor to realize joint action between stakeholders as it steers the organisation. Knowledge, especially shared knowledge, is the basis for collaboration as actions and decisions are based on this shared knowledge (Rydin, 2007). Therefore, contested knowledge requires consideration and can be complemented with new knowledge. Lastly, in collaboration processes resources can be shared among stakeholders. Resources encompasses for instance funding, time, support and power. Especially power is unequally divided between stakeholders and society. However, this distributed power creates the urgency to work across institutional borders and set up new governance structures to effectively govern societal problems (Meadowcroft, 2007). The collaborative dynamics enables the redistribution of resources among the stakeholders. Eventually, the perceived justice and legitimacy of collaborative governance depends on the way these resources are used and distributed.
Principled engagement Shared motivation Capacity for joint action ▪ Discovery ▪ Mutual trust ▪ Procedural/institutional ▪ Definition ▪ Mutual understanding arrangements ▪ Deliberation ▪ Internal legitimacy ▪ Leadership ▪ Determination ▪ Shared commitment ▪ (Shared) Knowledge ▪ Resources
Table 7: The three components of the collaborative dynamics with related characteristics
Collaborative actions are the outcome of a collaborative process. This implies that process and outcome are not separate from each other but are related to each other in collaborative governance (Innes & Booher, 1999). Collaborative actions can have broad goals (actions in strategic policy making) or narrow goals (actions in concrete projects). Examples of actions are the securing of determinations from city councils, establishing new policy measures (laws and regulations) or monitoring of the implementation of certain agreements. Impacts and adaptation are the results of collaborative actions and alters circumstances in the system context (Emerson et al., 2012).
Collaborative planning as described by Emerson et al. (2012) can result in network power (Innes & Booher, 2000). Network power arises from communication and collaboration between stakeholders that work together because of a common task and shared motivation to accomplish this task. Network power creates outcomes for all involved stakeholders that could not have been realised if stakeholders operated alone. Besides that, collaboration and collective action is in order of a public purpose and also responds to the duty of actors to plan in the public interest by incorporating several perspectives (Alexander, 2002). Innes & Booher (2000) described three conditions that are necessary to create network power. First, the stakeholders in the network (varying from state, market and civil society) should be diverse to guarantee a broad scope of interests and knowledge. Second, the stakeholders
24 are not able to realize their objectives alone and need each other. Third, an authentic dialogue and communication strategy engages stakeholders to discuss diverse perspectives. This network power emerges when stakeholders create a shared understanding of issues that need to be changed and therefore develops a collective action frame (Benford & Snow, 2000).
2.6 Conceptual framework
Figure 5: Conceptual framework with the principal relations between the main concepts. Source: own work
The principal relations between the concepts, terms and theories as described in the previous paragraphs are shown in the conceptual model. The conceptual model consists out of the theory of energy resource allocation (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019; Bridge et al., 2013) and the theory of energy justice (McCauley et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2015). The theory of energy resource allocation, existing out of distributive principles (e.g. capability, responsibility) and allocation strategies (e.g. equality and cost-efficiency) is connected to distributive justice because it all includes distributional aspects. The aspect of costs and benefits is already included in the theory of energy justice (Jenkins et al., 2015; Mundaca et al., 2018; Schlosberg., 2013). Distributive justice therefore exists out of the dimensions distributive principles, costs & benefits and allocation strategies. Procedural justice exists out of the dimension of information sharing, consultation process and decision-making.
The research object of this research is the regional energy justice perspective, which exists out of the experience about a just allocation and the experience about a just process. Based on the literature it is expected that the dimensions and indicators of distributive justice directly constitute to the experience about a just allocation (a) and indirectly influence the experience of a just process (b). Next to this, it is expected that the dimensions and indicators of procedural justice directly influence the experience of a just process (c) and indirectly constitute to the experience of a just allocation. The experience about a just allocation and the experience about a just process constitute to the regional energy justice perspective (e). The regional energy justice, existing out of the experience of a just allocation and the experience of a just process are in this respect the dependent variables. The dimensions and indicators of distributive and procedural justice are in this respect the independent variables and have an influence on the regional energy justice perspective, which is the dependent variable. The indicators of both distributive and procedural justice are further operationalised in paragraph 2.7.
2.7 Operationalisation
The operationalisation is structured in dimensions (A-F), indicators and definition (and occasionally sub-indicators). The indicators received a code (for example A1, A2) that refers to the list with interview questions. In the appendix the relation between the indicators and both the survey questions as the interview questions is depicted (Appendix A).
25
Dimension Code Indicator Explanation Distributive justice Distributive principles A1 Capability Capable municipalities, with higher number of citizens and land area, contribute more to the realisation of the energy task due to a higher capacity A2 Responsibility Municipalities that use more energy take the responsibility to contribute to a larger part of the energy task than municipalities that use less energy Costs & Benefits B1 Allocation of costs The distribution of negative burdens on all groups of society, existing out of: ▪ Environmental costs (impairment of spatial quality, nature and ecosystem) ▪ Financial costs (societal (network) costs) ▪ Social costs (shadow disturbance, sound disturbance, horizon pollution) B2 Allocation of The distribution of positive profits on all groups of society, benefits existing out of: ▪ Environmental benefits (CO2-emission reduction) ▪ Financial benefits (financial participation: local ownership, compensation, area fund) ▪ Social benefits (improvement living comfort, employment) Allocation strategies C1 Equality Spatially even distribution of electricity generation, resulting in a spreading of energy resources (solar and wind) over a region. C2 Cost-efficiency Spatially uneven distribution of electricity generation, resulting in a concentration of energy resources (solar and wind) in a region. Procedural justice Information sharing D1 Transparency The openness of information-sharing in the process D2 Timing Timely informing stakeholders during the process in: ▪ an early stage of the process, and: ▪ on regular moments in the process D3 Local information Mobilization of local information by a(n): ▪ recognition of the value of local information ▪ understanding how this information can be used Consultation process E1 Access to Invitation to and attendance at stakeholder meetings consultation E2 Participation Possibility to express opinions, interests, and concerns during the process E3 Institutional An equal representation and inclusion of stakeholders in the representation consultation process E4 Shared motivation Personal drive to achieve a common objective, as the result of: ▪ Mutual trust ▪ Mutual understanding ▪ Commitment Decision-making D1 Data-driven Decisions are based on technical knowledge, obtained from decision-making joint-fact finding, shared knowledge and knowledge building D2 Democratic Determination of plans by the city council and possibility to decision-making submit several perspectives.
Table 8: Operationalisation (source: own work)
26
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research philosophy
This research follows the constructivist approach because this research philosophy recognizes that the world is not driven by laws and mechanisms but should be considered as a social construction. The ontology of constructivism states that realities are apprehendable in the form of human-made constructions that are not holding the ‘truth’ but are subject to changes. Therefore, the ontological aspect is characterised with relativism (Moses & Knutsen, 2012; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The epistemology of constructivism endorsed that the world is not an objective reality and functions independent from the observer. Facts and observations are not neutral but created by the perspective of the observer which can differ from each other due to individual characteristics or social characteristics (Moses & Knutsen, 2012). This implies that the epistemological aspect is characterised with a transactional or subjectivist approach towards the research object (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The methodology of constructivism follows the hermeneutical and dialectical approach. This means that interactions between the observer and the respondents are needed to create a consensus of the individual constructions (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This research is aware of the fact that reality can be understand in different ways, facts are value-laden, and the researcher is connected to the research object and the respondents. The drawback of constructivist research is that ‘facts’ only have a meaning within a network of values. Research conclusions are determined by the context and cannot be generalised towards generic conclusions.
3.2 Research strategy and -model
The research strategy is the bridge between the theoretical framework and the actual implementation of the research. According to Scheepers et al. (2016) the research strategy explains the way the research is executed and what methodological choices are made. In this section the pros and cons of qualitative research are explained, and the use of a case-study research is motivated. After that, the construction of the research is explained with a so-called research model that shows the coherence between the questions and the research methods.
This research follows a qualitative approach which is a suitable approach to investigate a research object in detail and out of several perspectives (Van Thiel, 2014). This is an appropriate approach to research the experiences about the justice of the allocation of the regional energy bid by examining the perspectives of the seven municipalities within the Clean-Tech region. However, a qualitative approach contains three main pitfalls: first, it is difficult to generalise specific results. Second, a comprehensive research can be at the expense of the overall in-depth quality of the research. Third, it is difficult to quantify the results. A first notion is that this research is not aiming for generalisations about the experiences of justice in all the RES-regions but aims to investigate a diagnosis of the experience of justice in the Clean-Tech region. This is in line with a constructivist approach, as explained in paragraph 3.1.
The research is processed with both a deductive approach and an inductive approach. The deductive approach means that theoretical concepts are used to research empirical findings (Burney, 2008). In this research, the concept of energy justice is used to investigate and test if (in)justice is occurring in the Regional Energy Strategy of the Clean-Tech region. Therefore, the theoretical concepts require a further operationalisation (Zait, 2016). The inductive approach means that empirical findings from the case studies contribute to theory (Van Thiel, 2014). Findings of this research can contribute to the extension of the theory of energy justice.
Because the research question aims to investigate the experience about the allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid, a case-study research is an appropriate research strategy.
27
According to Yin (2014) case-study research is a suitable approach to answer why-questions. A case study research is characterised by a small number of units and a large number of variables (Van Thiel, 2014). The decision to apply case study research as the guiding research strategy is based on the explorative nature of the research problem of this study. According to Van Thiel (2014) an explorative research problem is a characteristic of a case study research. Therefore, the role of the case study is to explore the experiences about justice in the context of the Regional Energy Strategy in the Clean- Tech region.
As already stated, the research is designed as a singular case-study that provides an in-depth and comprehensive insight in a spatiotemporal constrained object. Based on this, the research takes a holistic approach where the case-study is examined in its natural environment (Scheepers et al., 2016). Yin (2014) defined a case study as ‘an empirical inquiry that investigate a phenomenon in depth and within a real world – contemporary context. Based on this definition, it can be stated that a case study research is helpful in answering the research question, because it provides an in-depth and integral understanding of the experience about a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid in the context of the Clean-Tech Region. Furthermore, Yin (2014) stated that a case study can be considered as a subject on its own that is not aiming for generalisations but aims to understand a contextual piece of reality. This type of case study is known as the didactical case study which is characterised with a practical approach (Moses & Knutsen, 2012).
Research model
This research analysis the experience about a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid in the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) of the Clean-Tech region. The main research question is as follows:
What direct and underlying factors constitute the regional energy justice perspective, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
The main research question is divided into four sub questions that together provide a substantiated answer to the main research question. The first sub question (Q1) examines the current literature and provides a theoretical framework for measuring energy justice and the related allocation strategies. This framework is essential because it connects to the current knowledge of what constitutes a just allocation and creates an informed basis from science. The first sub question is formulated as follows:
1. What factors can be derived from scientific literature that constitute energy justice?
Based on this framework, the research examines the current discourse about justice in the policy documents of the RES-regions in the second sub question. The second sub question (Q2) is formulated as follows:
2. How is justice described in the policy documents of the RES-regions?
Based on this desk research, the factors and motivations that explain the experience of justice are examined in the third and fourth sub question, resulting in a diagnosis of the level of both distributive and procedural justice. The third sub question (Q3) is formulated as follows:
3. What factors explain the experience of distributive justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
The fourth sub question (Q4) is formulated as follows:
4. What factors explain the experience of procedural justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
28
In figure 6 below the research model is visualised in four phases with the corresponding sub questions. The collection of data consists out of a literature overview (phase 1), content analysis, survey and in- depth interviews (phase 2). Therefore, this research uses data triangulation which increases the reliability of the research (Van Thiel, 2014).
Figure 6: Schematic overview of the research model 3.3 Research methods, data collection and data analysis
In this section the four research methods that are used in this research are explained: content-analysis, calculation, survey, and semi-structured interviews. It will elaborate on the application of the method and provides an argumentation for the use of this method.
Content-analysis
To get a first insight in the discourse about justice in the policy document of the RES-regions and to provide an answer to the second sub question (Q2) a content analysis will be conducted. A content analysis is a method to categorize concepts within the text. The aim of a content analysis is to identify patterns and collect information from policy documents and reports in a systematic way (Krippendorff, 2018). According to Van Thiel (2014) a content analysis fits with the research strategy of a case study. The documents that are analysed with the content analysis are the preliminary memoranda (startnotities) of several RES-processes. The preliminary memoranda form the starting point of the RES-processes. For this analysis 6 RES-regions are selected to analyse the discourse about justice. An important criterion for the selection of the RES-regions is that the RES-regions are distributed over the Netherlands in all wind directions (north, east, south, west) and the centre of the Netherlands (see table 9). A second criterion is that the RES-regions have established a preliminary memorandum. This analysis is not aiming for comparisons between RES-regions or generalisation about the RES-regions but aims to draw a more information-rich image of the discourse about justice.
Part of the Netherlands RES-Region(s) Document North RES Groningen D1 East RES Clean-Tech regio/Stedendriehoek D2 South RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven D3 RES Zeeland D4 West RES Noord-Holland Noord D5 Centre RES U10/U16 D6 Table 9: Selected RES-regions for the content-analysis
29
The indicators of the operationalisation (paragraph 2.7) are used as keywords to describe the discourse about justice in the preliminary memoranda of the RES-regions. The indicators are translated into Dutch and displayed below in table 10 and 11. The content-analysis exists out of a quantitative and a qualitative part. In the quantitative part the indicators are used as keywords to analyse how frequently these keywords are present in the preliminary memoranda of the selected RES-regions. In the qualitative analysis the indicators are described with the textual information obtained from the content-analysis.
Indicator Dutch keyword Sources Capability Vermogen Höhne et al. (2014); Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) Responsibility Verantwoordelijkheid Höhne et al. (2014); Allocation of costs Verdeling van lasten Mundaca et al. (2018) Schlosberg (2013) Jenkins et al. (2016). Allocation of benefits Verdeling van lusten Mundaca et al. (2018) Schlosberg (2013) Jenkins et al. (2016) Equality Gelijkheid Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) Cost-efficiency Kosten-efficiënt Höhne et al. (2014); Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) Table 10: Distributive justice with the related indicators and Dutch translation
Indicator Dutch keyword Sources Transparency Transparantie/openbaarheid Jenkins et al. (2016) Mundaca (2018) Timing Tijdig informeren) Mundaca (2018) Local information Lokale informatie Jenkins et al. (2016) Mundaca (2018) Access to consultation Toegang tot overleg/proces Mundaca (2018) Participation Participatie/inspraak Mundaca (2018) Institutional (Institutionele) vertegenwoordiging Jenkins et al. (2016) representation Leventhal (1980) Shared motivation Gedeelde motivatie/ Emerson et al. (2012) vertrouwen/begrip/ betrokkenheid Data-driven decision- Data-gedreven besluitvorming Karl et al. (2007) making Emerson et al. (2018) Democratic decision- Democratische besluitvorming Morrell (2005) making Table 11: Procedural justice with the related indicators and Dutch translation
30
Survey
To analyse the factors that explain the experience of justice (Q4) and constitute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid of the Clean-Tech region, this research uses a survey to quantify the opinions and perspectives of the respondents. The use of a survey tackles the pitfall of qualitative research which find it difficult to quantify results. The survey contains in total 23 questions with five types of survey questions:
- The first type of question is the multiple-choice question. Respondents are asked to choose an answer from a fixed list of answers which are mutually exclusive. - The second type of question is the Likert scale with a 5-point scale varying from ‘highly desirable to highly undesirable’, ‘highly fair to highly unfair’ and ‘totally agree to totally disagree’. - The third type of question is the ‘constant sum’. The respondents are asked to divide a total of 30 points over three aspects to allocate the energy task: land area, inhabitants, and energy use. - The fourth type of question is the ‘ranking order’. In this question respondents are asked to rank several types of costs and benefits. - The fifth type of question is the ‘open question’. This question is used to ask for additional information or to give the respondents the possibility to motivate their answer.
Because the perspectives of administrative municipalities are examined in this research, the civil servants and aldermen of the municipalities in the Clean-Tech region are asked to fill in the survey. The survey is an online questionnaire designed in Qualtrics and distributed with an email to the members of the coordination group of the Regional Energy Strategy in the Clean-Tech region. The coordination group exist out of an administrative process consultant, employee’s sustainability of the municipalities, province and water boards, Strategic Board of the Cleantech Region, and grid operator Liander. The coordination group is responsible for the administrative preparation of the decision-making, monitors the progression and coordinates activities in the own constituency. In this way members include employees that are involved with (environmental) policy (RES Clean-Tech, 2019). Members of the coordination group that are working at the municipalities are asked to spread the survey to colleagues that are closely connected to the RES-process and to the alderman that takes part in the steering group.
The advantage of a survey is that it generates structured data that provides a quantified insight in the perspectives of the administrative municipalities. A disadvantage of a survey is that respondents only can choose from a limited amount of answers. Because this can have consequences for the accuracy of the research, this is solved by adding the option ‘otherwise’ and a comments box. Another disadvantage of a survey is that interaction with the respondent and the opportunity to ask in-depth questions is not possible. This last drawback is solved with the conduction of interviews. The quantitative data of the survey will be analysed in combination with the qualitative interview data. The combination of interviews and a survey is part of the mixed-methods approach.
Interview
In addition to the survey semi-structured interviews will be conducted to analyse the factors that explain the experience of justice (Q4) and constitute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid of the Clean-Tech region. Interviews are an appropriate research method to acquire non-factual information, such as opinions and perceptions (Van Thiel, 2014). Besides that, the interviews are an appropriate research method to acquire background information and underlying motivations. The in-depth interviews are therefore an valuable addition to the survey. A semi- structured interview, that uses a topic list as a guiding line, is used to obtain information from the
31 respondents. In contradiction to structured interviews, semi-structured interviews ask open questions which gives the respondent the possibility to formulate their own answers. Another benefit of a semi- structured interview in relation to a non-structured interview is that this gives the opportunity to acquire the same information from all the respondents.
In line with deductive research, the interview questions are based on the operationalisation of the theoretical concepts (Van Thiel, 2014). The indicators of the operationalisation provide a structure for the topic-list. The topic list contains predetermined questions but provides the opportunity to derogate and ask in-depth questions, which leads to more detailed information. The selection of respondents for the interviews is based on purposeful sampling. This means that a specific research context and specific individuals can be chosen (Van Thiel, 2014). The selected respondents for the interviews are aldermen and civil servants of the seven municipalities that belong to the Clean-Tech region. The interviews will be transcribed before the data units are labelled with several codes (thematic codes and axial codes).
3.4 Case study Clean-Tech Region
The Clean-Tech region is chosen as a case-study, because this region is in the concluding phase of the process towards the concept-RES. Besides that, out of a practical perspective my supervisor from Over Morgen is able to connect me with respondents of the municipalities of the Clean-Tech region. The case-study of this research is the Clean-Tech region (figure X) which exist out of the municipalities of Apeldoorn, Zutphen, Lochem, Epe, Voorst, Brummen and Heerden.
Figure 7: The 30 RES-regions with a magnified view of the Clean-Tech region (Source: adapted from Energeia)
From these 7 municipalities the municipality of Zutphen and the municipality of Apeldoorn are urban areas. The other municipalities (Lochem, Epe, Voorst, Brummen and Heerden) are rural areas. The Clean-Tech Region counts in total 340.480 inhabitants and covers an area of 1049 km2 (RES Clean-Tech, 2020). The Clean-Tech Region is not only a region that develops a regional energy strategy (RES) but is also a cooperation that works together towards an energy-neutral and sustainable economy and society. The cooperation Clean-Tech Region works on themes related to the energy transition, circular economy, smart and sustainable mobility, and a green living environment. The philosophy behind this cooperation is that it creates a sustainable climate for business and creates new jobs. The ambition of the Clean-Tech Region is to be energy-neutral in 2030. This implies that the generation of energy inside the region is equal to the energy use (RES Clean-Tech, 2019). To achieve the goal of energy-neutral in 2030 the energy task is 7,41 TWh. Next to the ambition of the Clean-Tech Region, the ambition of the Gelders Energie Akkoord (GEA) is to decrease the CO2-emmision with 55%, resulting in an energy task of 1,50 TWh. In the concept-RES, that is published in the end of March, the energy-bid of the
32
Clean-Tech Region is 1.23 TWh existing out of 0,78 TWh for land-based solar-energy and 0,45 TWh for wind turbines (RES Clean-Tech, 2020).
The process of the RES in the Cleantech Region started with a preliminary memorandum that is determined by the steering group of the Cleantech Region. In this document the ambition to be energy- neutral in 2030 is included. After the determination of the preliminary memorandum a kick-off meeting was organised to elaborate on the design principles for the integration of solar and wind energy in the landscape: link with infrastructure, offer an demand together, clustering and the landscape is leading. Subsequently these design principles were further elaborated in seven local design-ateliers to investigate preferences and possibilities for each municipality. After that, a regional council and provincial meeting was organised to inform city councils about the process of the RES. The next step was to investigate the options for large-scale solar- and wind energy in a collective local and regional design-atelier. After these design-ateliers, the opinions of citizens and young people were collected by means of an online survey. At the start of 2020, an acceleration was established by organising several design-ateliers about the three main scenarios. In March, the concept-RES was finished and disclosed to the stakeholders and citizens of the municipalities in the Clean-Tech Region. Due to the corona-crisis, the process towards the decision-making about the concept-RES is postponed (Cleantech, 2020). An overview of the process towards the concept-RES is showed in the list below:
- May 2019: Preliminary memoranda - June 2019: Kick-off meeting - July-September 2019: Local design-ateliers in the municipalities - 30 October: Regional council and provincial meeting - 26 November: Collective local and regional design-atelier - November-December 2019: Online survey - December-February 2020: Swipocratie (online survey) - January-February 2020 Design-ateliers about the three scenarios - March 2020 Concept-RES
33
3.5 Validity and reliability
In this section the validity (extern and intern) and the reliability are discussed because this is important for the execution and the quality of this research.
Intern validity
The intern validity is the extent towards the correct research methods are used in relation to the research question, which is also known as methodological validity (Bryman & Bell, 2011). To enhance the intern validity the concepts from the literature are operationalised which increases the content validity and conceptual validity. The intern validity of this research is guaranteed by providing a clear definition of the research object (7 municipalities in the Clean-Tech region). To secure a representative image of the perspectives of the municipalities, the target group of this research is formed by civil servants of the coordination group of the Clean-Tech Region and aldermen of the steering group of the Clean-Tech Region. The intern validity of the interviews is enhanced by using the same topic list with interview questions for every interview and by conducting the interviews under the same conditions, namely by means of a telephone interview. To enhance the intern validity of the survey and the interviews, the topic list and list with survey questions is discussed with the thesis supervisor from Nijmegen and the internship supervisor of Over Morgen. The combination of a survey and interviews leads to a mixed-methods approach, also known as data-triangulation, which increases the intern validity of the research (Van Thiel, 2014).
Extern validity
Extern validity is the extent to which the results of the research can be generalised. According to Yin (2014), analytical or theoretical generalisation means that the researcher applies a theoretical model to empirical cases and that the results of the case study are used to contribute to the theory. This research uses the theory of energy justice and applies this to the case of the Clean-Tech region. The findings of this study enrich the current knowledge of energy justice. This research is not aiming for a generalisation of all the RES-regions but aims to execute an in-depth investigation of the seven municipalities in the Clean-Tech region. The focus on one RES-region is chosen because the process- approaches of every region is different and therefore the experience of justice varies between the RES- regions. However, the RES-regions received the same task from the national government to offer an energy-bid and therefore the results and conclusions of this research might be applicable for municipalities in other RES-regions.
Reliability
The reliability of a research gives insight in the consistency of the results of the research. An important aspect is that if by a repetition of the research the same results are generated. The independency of both the researcher and of the methods are important factors to enhance the reliability of the research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The reliability with qualitative research is difficult to guarantee because the results from the interviews are interpreted by the researcher and are therefore subject to subjectivity. By providing transcriptions of the interviews the reliability can be guaranteed. The objectivity of the interviews is further enhanced by asking open questions and avoiding steering questions. To guarantee transparency and enable repetition, the topic-list and list with survey questions are also included in the appendix (Appendix C and Appendix D). To reconstruct the research a so-called ‘audit trail’ is made. In this audit trail the research steps are recorded which reveals the way the results are obtained. Lastly, it is important to note that the Regional Energy Strategy that is analysed in this research is in the starting phase and therefore the experiences of justice from the perspectives of the municipalities can be different in a later stage of the RES-process.
34
CHAPTER 4: DISCOURSE ABOUT JUSTICE
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter the discourse about justice is examined by means of a content-analysis. For this analysis, the preliminary memoranda of 6 selected RES-regions are examined: RES Groningen, RES Cleantech regio, RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven, RES Zeeland, RES Noord-Holland Noord and RES U10/U16 (see figure 8). The preliminary memoranda are selected because these documents are established in the RES-regions as a preparation for the process. In the preliminary memoranda the starting points, design of the process, the allocation of responsibilities and the organisation structure is explained.
Figure 8: Selected RES-regions for the content-analysis
The content-analysis exists out of two parts. In the first part of the content-analysis the indicators are used as keywords to analyse how frequently these keywords are present in the preliminary memoranda of the selected RES-regions (paragraph 4.2). In the second part of the content-analysis the indicators are described with the textual information obtained from the content-analysis (paragraph 4.3). On base of this content-analysis a first insight is obtained in the discourse about justice at the start of the RES-process. This analysis is not aiming for comparisons between RES-regions or generalisations about the RES-regions but aims to draw a more information-rich image of the discourse about justice and serves as an informed background for the survey questions and interview questions. In this way sub question 2 is examined, which is formulated as follows: how is justice described in the policy documents of the RES-regions?
4.2 Results key-word search
The results of the key-word search (table 12 and 13) show that from the indicators of distributive justice the indicator responsibility received the most search results. After responsibility, the indicators allocation of costs and allocation of benefits are mostly present in the preliminary memoranda, followed by cost-efficiency, capability and equality. From the indicators of procedural justice participation and institutional representation received the most search results. After participation and institutional representation, the indicators of commitment and timing are mostly present in the preliminary memoranda, followed by transparency, local information, access to information, shared motivation, and democratic decision-making. Based on this, it can be concluded that justice in the frame of distributive justice is predominantly described in terms of responsibility and allocation of costs
35 and benefits and in the frame of procedural justice in terms of participation and institutional representation.
Indicator Dutch keyword D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 TOTAL Capability Capaciteit 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 Responsibility Verantwoordelijkheid 1 5 12 4 6 1 29 Allocation of costs Verdeling van lasten 8 0 1 1 1 1 12 Allocation of benefits Verdeling van lusten 6 0 1 1 1 2 11 Equality Gelijkheid: spreiding 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 Cost-efficiency Kosten-efficiënt: clustering 1 1 4 1 2 1 10 Table 12: Frequency of the indicators of distributive justice (source: own work)
Indicator Dutch keyword D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 TOTAL Transparency Transparantie/openbaarheid 0 0 0 4 1 0 5 Timing Tijdig (informeren) 1 1 0 1 1 2 6 Local information Lokale informatie 0 1 0 0 3 1 5 Access to consultation Toegang tot overleg/proces 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 Participation Participatie/inspraak 11 5 5 1 19 4 45 Institutional representation Vertegenwoordiging 1 2 9 10 13 1 36 Shared motivation Gedeelde motivatie 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 Vertrouwen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Begrip 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Betrokkenheid 2 1 2 2 1 0 8 Data-driven decision-making Data-gedreven besluitvorming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Democratic decision-making Democratische besluitvorming 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 Table 13: Frequency of the indicators of distributive justice (source: own work)
4.3 Qualitative section
In this section the most important lessons and results, derived from the content-analysis, are described. First the allocation of costs and benefits will be discussed, followed by the relation between the sharing and mobilisation of information and the relation between participation and support. Lastly, the institutional representation will be discussed.
4.3.1 Allocation of costs and benefits
The analysis showed that the allocation of costs and benefits forms a crucial aspect in the preliminary memoranda with the general aim ‘to receive support as much as possible for the choices to be made’ (RES Groningen, 2019). It is all about a good and fair allocation of costs and benefits (RES Groningen, 2019; RES Zeeland, 2019), but also to seek a balance and consistency between costs and benefits (RES Clean-Tech, 2019; RES U10/U16, 2019). The content-analysis showed that there is a broad interpretation about what costs and benefits entails. The costs of the energy transition exist, for example, out of the decline of spatial quality, grid connection costs, shadow disturbance, sound disturbance and visual pollution (RES Groningen, 2019; RES Eindhoven, 2019; RES Noord-Holland Noord, 2019). Next to the costs of the energy transition the content-analysis also showed some benefits: decrease of greenhouse emission, local ownership, financial participation, individual compensation for the direct environment, area funds and employment (RES Groningen, 2019; RES Eindhoven, 2019; RES Noord-Holland Noord, 2019, RES U10/U16, 2019).
The content-analyses showed that several costs and benefits (financial profits, local ownership and other spatial benefits) are formulated on the operational scale. This relates to the construction and exploitation of concrete energy projects. A discussion of the costs and benefits between municipalities and on the regional scale is lacking. However, the preliminary memoranda of Eindhoven stated that a fair, realistic and clear allocation key of the costs and benefits of the energy transition over the municipalities is needed (RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven, 2019). Because the possibilities and chances
36 of large-scale generation are different for the municipalities in a RES-region the contribution of the municipalities to the regional energy bid are different. This implies that some municipalities receive more wind turbines and solar fields than other municipalities. To enhance the justice of this allocation, clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits are essential (RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven, 2019).
The preliminary memorandum of the RES Groningen explained why it is important to make a just allocation of costs and benefits. Costs and benefits of energy projects not always end up to the same groups because of two reasons. First, the energy production is not in the hands of the groups that purchase the energy. Second, on the places of energy production more energy is produced than locally consumed, mostly for consumers elsewhere. This implies that one group lives between the energy production activities (costs), while other groups profits from the sustainable generated energy and operators profit from the financial revenues (RES Groningen, 2019). Therefore, ‘citizens that encounter direct problems with the energy transition should profit from the revenues as much as possible’ (RES Groningen, 2019). To enhance the benefits of energy projects, citizens can financially profit from these projects or be compensated for losses. Next to financial benefits, local ownership and control, living comfort, solutions for other spatial bottlenecks or new economic opportunities around sustainable energy contribute to a fair allocation of costs and benefits (RES Groningen, 2019; RES U10/U16, 2019). Lastly, it is stated that if energy is generated to make the energy demand outside the region more sustainable, local stakeholders and citizens should financially participate from those energy projects or should be compensated (RES Groningen). It is also stated that possibilities should be examined to keep the revenues from energy projects in the region itself (RES U10/U16, 2019).
Next to the allocation of costs and benefits, cost-efficiency forms an important criterion for the amount of energy resources as it diminishes the grid connection costs. This is illustrated in the following citation: ‘Within the RES a reasonable consideration needs to be made between costs and spatial quality (RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven, 2019)’. The RES is about customisation and societal support, but cost-efficiency, spatial quality and societal acceptance are also important principles for the final RES energy bid (RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven, 2019). In addition to these principles, grid capacity and affordability are also important criterions for the choices that will be made during the process. The RES is, in this respect, an instrument to cope with (societal) costs in an effective way (RES Clean-Tech, 2019). The RES Noord-Holland Noord (2019) states that (societal) cost efficiency is realized by locating demand and offer as close as possible.
4.3.2 Sharing and mobilisation of information
The content-analysis also showed that transparency in information sharing is considered to be a crucial aspect. In the preliminary memoranda of RES Zeeland (2019) it is stated that ‘transparency, clear expectations, action perspective, information and knowledge transfer are inseparable associated with a successful RES’. Furthermore, a transparent form of collaboration and decision-making provides trust (RES Zeeland, 2019). According to the preliminary memoranda information sharing on a timely basis is part of a transparent process. It is important to share information in the beginning of the process, because due to the short throughput time, possibilities to inform stakeholders are relatively limited (RES Cleantech, 2019). This is done by establishing a preliminary memorandum which informs interested and involved persons in an early stage of the process (RES Cleantech, 2019; RES U10/U16) but also by organising local and regional design ateliers where scenarios and design principles are formulated (RES Noord-Holland Noord, 2019). The organisation and invitation to stakeholder meeting is the responsibility of the municipalities that communicate about the RES and the process of the RES (RES U10/U16; RES Cleantech, 2019). The analysis showed that not only the sharing of information in transparent and timely manner constitutes to justice, but also the mobilisation of information needs to take place in local and regional design ateliers. In the RES Noord-Holland Noord (2019) it is stated that ‘the process to create an energy strategy is considered to be a harmonious interaction where all
37 participants are asked to use their knowledge, creativity and time’. Next to the input of stakeholders, it is also important that stakeholders have access to information, maps and data that are used to develop the RES (RES Groningen, 2019).
4.3.3 Participation and support
The analysis made clear that participation is an important precondition for the feasibility of the RES- process. In the RES Noord-Holland Noord (2019) it is stated that the energy transition is not only a technical or a planning tasks but also a participation task. According to the RES Groningen (2019) participation exist out of procedural and financial participation. This means that citizens and stakeholders have a voice in the location, size, design and integration of energy projects (procedural participation). Next to this, citizens and stakeholders share in the revenues of energy projects (financial participation). Another remarkable result of the analysis is that participation is close related to support. To achieve support, an extensive communication and participation project is important (RES Groningen). This is illustrated in the following citations:
‘To achieve support, we use an extensive communication- and participation route, with the objective to achieve good process- and financial participation’ (RES Groningen,2019).
‘To create local support for the Regional Energy Strategy, careful participation and supporting communication is of major importance’ (RES Noord-Holland Noord, 2019)
The analysis showed that there is a distinction made between societal and administrative support. Societal support is realised by a careful participation by the formation of the RES (local and regional) and also by financial participation in the generation (for example local ownership) (RES Noord-Holland Noord, 2019). The RES Clean-Tech (2019) stated that it is a complex task to guarantee involvement and societal support, because the throughput time is limited. The way to achieve sufficient support and involvement can be done by the use of story-telling which also increases the transparency of the process:
‘We choose to start with the creation of thorough story. What are we doing, what is our objective and what possibilities do we see for the realisation of sustainable energy in the region? This story is shaped by ateliers with societal organisations, stakeholders and professional parties’ (RES Clean- Tech, 2019)
Administrative support is guaranteed by the steering group or the official policy advise group by fulfilling the role of an ambassador to the own organisation, participating governments, stakeholders and society (RES Groningen, 2019; RES Noord-Holland Noord, 2019). Lastly, the analysis showed that the necessity of democratic decision-making is recognised because it is important that municipalities maintain the direction in a way that the democratic legitimacy is filled in (RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven, 2019). In the RES Zeeland (2019) it is stated that ‘a careful process of decision-making with democratic chosen institutions, such as councils, is important for the support or acceptation of the RES’.
4.3.4 Institutional representation
The analysis showed that the steering group is the most prominent institutional representative board in the process of the RES. The composition of the steering group varies per RES from the three governments (municipalities, province and water boards) to a broader representation by grid operators, societal parties and business partners (RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven, 2019). The function of the steering group is three-fold. First, the steering group represents the governments in the region. Second, the steering group is the administrative client of the RES and lastly, the steering group assesses the most important products of the RES and prepares them for further determination by the councils of municipalities and provinces and general management of the water boards (RES Groningen, 2019).
38
Another remarkable observation is the important role of aldermen in the RES-process. In the RES U10/U16 (2019) the aldermen are responsible for the RES of the participating municipalities and in the RES Noord-Holland Noord (2019) the aldermen are part of the steering group. In the regional design ateliers community councils, energy corporations and entrepreneurs are represented by local representatives (RES Clean-Tech, 2019).
Lastly, the analysis showed that the terms of some indicators were present in the preliminary memoranda, but not in the definition as used in this research. This counts for the indicators of equality, capability, responsibility, shared motivation and mutual understanding. Equality is not used in the definition of equal distribution of energy resources but is used in the context of equality in working relationships. Capability refers to generation capacity of solar and wind energy or the capacity to use expertise and resources of public administration and governments instead of the ‘ability’ to contribute to the energy task. Even as capability, responsibility is not present in the definition as used in this research. Responsibility is considered as the responsibility of aldermen, civil servants and representatives of energy companies. Lastly, the analysis showed that shared motivation and mutual understanding are also not present in the preliminary memoranda of the selected RES-regions.
4.4 Conclusion
This analysis gives an answer to the second sub question: how is justice described in the policy documents of the RES-regions? The content-analysis showed that in the preliminary memoranda of the selected RES-regions justice is predominantly described in terms of the allocation of costs and benefits, transparency, timing, mobilisation of local information, access to consultation, participation, democratic decision-making and institutional representation. In the table below (table 14) a distinction is made between the indicators that are emerging out of this analysis as relatively important and indicators that were not or barely named in the preliminary memoranda. It is important to mention that the results of this sub study are relatively ‘soft’ as the analysis is based on a selection of documents.
Important Less or not important Allocation of costs and benefits Capability Transparency Responsibility Timing Equality Local information Cost-efficiency Access to consultation Shared motivation Participation Data-driven decision-making Institutional representation Democratic decision-making Table 14: List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important
In short, the content analysis showed that the allocation of costs and benefits is crucial in the preliminary memoranda with a broad interpretation about what costs and benefits entails. The content-analysis showed that several costs and benefits are formulated on the operational scale while a discussion of the costs and benefits between municipalities and on the regional scale is lacking. Next to this, the analysis showed that not only the sharing of information in a transparent and timely manner constitutes to justice, but also the mobilisation of information needs to take place in local and regional design ateliers. Another remarkable result of the analysis is that participation (procedural and financial) is close related to support (societal and administrative). To achieve support, an extensive communication and participation project is essential. Lastly, the content-analysis showed that the role of the steering group and aldermen is important during the consultation process while the role of the city council is essential during the decision-making process.
39
CHAPTER 5: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter the experiences about distributive justice and about the just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid is examined. The indicators that are related to distributive justice are discussed with results from the survey as well from the interviews. Next to these indicators other (inductive) results concerning the regional energy bid are described at the end of this chapter. In this way sub question 3 is examined, which is formulated as follows: what factors explain the experience of distributive justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
5.2 Distributive principles
In this paragraph the distributive principles of Höhne et al. (2014) will be discussed: capability and responsibility. Capability means that municipalities with higher number of citizens and land area contribute more the realisation of the energy task due to a higher capacity. Responsibility means that municipalities that that use more energy take the responsibility to contribute to a larger part of the energy task than municipalities that use less energy. The energy task can therefore be allocated according to a model-based allocation consisting out of the allocation keys of land area, inhabitants and energy use.
Figure 9: Survey question 5 (top left), survey question 7.1 (top right), survey question 7.2 (bottom left) and survey question 7.3 (bottom right). Source: own work
The results of the survey showed that 54% of the respondents (highly) agreed with an allocation based on land area and the score (highly) disagree lacks (figure 9, top right). 45% of the respondents (highly) agreed with an allocation based on energy use and the response is allocated over the five answer categories (figure 9, bottom right). 27% of the respondents agreed with an allocation based on inhabitants whereas the score highly disagree is lacking (figure 9, bottom left). Based on these results it can be stated that an allocation based on land area is found to be the most just, followed by an allocation based on energy use. An allocation based on inhabitants is clearly less desirable since the score ‘highly agree’ is not present en almost half of the respondents (45%) did not express their
40 opinion. If the energy task is allocated based on this model-based allocation less value is given to inhabitants whereas an allocation based on land area has the preference, followed by energy use.
From the interviews it is stated that this threefold division is too simple, because in the process attention is preliminary paid to landscape potential (Interview 4, Appendix F). At the beginning of the process the model-based allocation is outlined but not used afterwards (Interview 2, Appendix F). During the process the surface area of open fields and open landscape structure were the leading factors instead of the total land area of the municipality (Interview 2, Appendix F). According to respondent 6 the characteristics of the area and the capacity of the landscape are the precondition for the allocation whereas the number of inhabitants, land area and energy use is less relevant. In addition to this, respondent 6 stated that the allocation should be based on the most effective places where the number of wind turbines and solar parks is the highest and the connection to the energy power grid is the most cost-efficient.
The landscape potential was therefore during the process the starting point for the allocation where the municipal borders are not used as fixed lines. Municipalities differ from each other in landscape characteristics and population density. Therefore, it is ‘just that the allocation is different than in the case that the task is defined exactly for every municipality’ (Interview 4, Appendix F). For example, Apeldoorn counts more inhabitants and has an higher energy demand because of a lot of industrial activity. Besides that, the rural area of Apeldoorn is relatively smaller than the neighbouring municipality of Voorst. Because the generation of energy takes predominantly place in the rural area, it is according to respondent 4 ‘on base of that justified that Voorst takes more of the regional energy task and therefore takes it regional responsibility’. The survey also showed that a high energy use in a municipality can be the result of industry. Industry in turn offers regional employment and therefore the energy task can be considered as a common task (Question 6, Appendix E). This is in contradiction with the responsibility principle of Höhne et al. (2014) that states that municipalities with a higher energy use should contribute more to the regional energy task. Respondent 4 also indicated that if the outcome is that the municipality with the highest number of inhabitants generates relatively less because the possibilities are limited, this should be discussed during the process.
Furthermore, the respondents stated that the process, which follows the landscape potential, is the most important ground to allocate the energy task. This also becomes clear from the survey where 55% of the respondents indicates that the energy task should be divided based on the process in opposition to 36% of the respondents that prefer the model-based allocation (Question 12, Appendix E). Respondent 7 depicted that, next to the three allocation keys, four criteria play an important role: land use, generation, societal support and system efficiency (Interview 7, Appendix F). The process, with knowledge generation and research, is leading and in the final political decision making the model-based allocation is used for a comparison (Interview 7, Appendix F). This is confirmed by respondent 5 who stated that the model-based allocation is used as a test to assess if the outcome of the process (which follows the landscape potential) is fair.
Another important aspect in the allocation is the relation between urban municipalities and rural municipalities in the frame of energy generation. The interviews showed that the differences in municipal contribution between urban and rural municipalities is not discussed (Interview 1, Appendix F). The general principle, according to Kroll et al. (2012), is that rural municipalities can contribute more because they dispose over relatively more rural area. The survey showed that the respondents have nuanced opinions about this principle. 45% of the respondents (highly) agreed with this principle, 27% is neutral and 27% (highly) disagreed with this principle (Question 11.4, Appendix E). The objective is that urban municipalities generate energy on their own municipal territory as much as possible (Interview 7, Appendix F), however rural municipalities are willing to share their generated energy with neighbouring municipalities according to respondent 6. The survey showed that 36% of the respondents indicated that urban municipalities should contribute more because of the relatively high energy demand in opposition to 27% of the respondents that (highly) disagreed with this statement
41
(Question 11.3, Appendix F). Another remarkable observation is that, according to the interviewees, urban municipalities in the Cleantech region (resp. Apeldoorn and Zutphen) contributed relatively high to the regional energy bid (Interview 1, Appendix F; Interview 6, Appendix F).
5.3 Costs and benefits
In the framework of energy justice, the allocation of costs and benefits forms an essential aspect. The allocation of costs is defined as the distribution of negative burdens on all groups of society, existing out of: environmental costs (impairment of spatial quality, nature and ecosystem), financial costs (societal (network) costs) and social costs (shadow disturbance, sound disturbance and horizon pollution) (Mundaca et al., 2018; Schlosberg, 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016; Späth, 2018). The survey showed that social costs contributes the most to the experience of injustice, followed by environmental costs and lastly financial costs (Question 8, Appendix E). The allocation of benefits is defined as the distribution of positive profits on all groups of society, existing out of: environmental benefits (CO2-emmission reduction), financial benefits (financial participation, local ownership, compensation or area fund) and social benefits (improvement living comfort, employment) (Mundaca et al., 2018; Schlosberg, 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016). The survey showed that financial benefits contributes the most to the experience of justice, followed by social benefits and lastly environmental benefits (Question 9, Appendix E).
The survey showed that clear agreements about a just allocation of costs and benefits contributes to an enhanced sense of justice. 27% of the respondents highly agrees with this, 36% agrees with this and 36% is neutral about this. The answer categories disagree and highly disagree are not present (figure 10, left). Based on this, it can be stated that costs and benefits are an essential aspect of justice.
Figure 10: Survey question 7.4 (left) and survey question 7.5 (right). Source: own work
The interviews showed that clear agreements about a just allocation of costs and benefits is important for the justification of the RES, but also made clear that the discussion about cost and benefits will play a major role in the translation of the RES into environmental policy. In the environmental visions (omgevingsvisies) and environmental plans (omgevingsplannen), instruments belonging to the new Environmental Law (omgevingswet), agreements and rules can be determined (Interview 5, Appendix F). Next to environmental policy, costs and benefits can be anchored in the so-the so-called ‘invitation frames for large-scale energy generation’ (Interview 5, Appendix F). In this invitation frames playing rules and preconditions are formulated for the spatial integration of large-scale energy generation. In addition, agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits can also be included into these invitation frames. The Cleantech region is allowed to express views on costs and benefits, however the municipalities are responsible to make a decision about the translation of costs and benefits into environmental policy of large-scale energy projects (Interview 7, Appendix F). Respondent 1 stressed the importance of costs and benefits in relation to each other. The costs need to be recognised but the focus should predominantly be on the benefits. The interviews showed that the benefits can be divided into different forms of benefits. One type of benefits is that by means of energy corporations the
42 profits of large-scale energy project return to society and the area. Besides that, the construction of wind turbines and solar panels generates employment (Interview 3, Appendix F).
Other benefits are local ownership and financial participation. In the Climate Agreements the agreement is made to work towards 50% local ownership which implies that citizens need to invest and are exposed to risks (Interview 7, Appendix F). Respondent 7 made a critical comment to local ownership: the focus is on financial participation and ownership, but if this implies that inhabitants are forced to invest millions and are exposed to risks then I am not in favour of high ownership. Then I am in favour of benefits and co-determination and other benefits. My appeal is to be aware of this kind of platitudes like: co-ownership is just’ (Interview 7, Appendix F). A main solution for this, is the organization of citizens in an energy cooperation where citizens can profit from large-scale energy generation, but with a limited risk. On the operational scale clear agreements about the allocation of benefits can be established by municipalities. However, this will play a major role in the executive part of the RES towards environmental policy or invitation frames. It is expected that clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits will enhance the experience of justice and might also constitute to a justification of the allocation afterwards.
Next to costs and benefits on the operational scale, agreements about compensation can be made on the regional scale. In a situation where a lot of energy is generated in a municipality a compensation in return can be offered by another municipality in the region or the province grants permission to develop more houses in a specific area (Interview 6, Appendix F). According to respondent 4 discussions about allocation issues, such as housing development and business areas, took place in the past in the cooperation of the ‘Stedendriehoek’ (another name for the Cleantech region). Respondent 4 also stated that investments in the project development of sustainable energy should not merely come from the municipality that owns the land but also from neighbouring municipalities. The survey showed that 55% of the respondents agreed with a (financial) compensation for a municipality that contributes with a relatively large amount of TWh in comparison to neighbouring municipalities (figure 10, right). One predominant feature is that 27% is highly agree with this (financial) compensation. This can be explained by the fact that compensations on the regional level are not developed yet and therefore can lead to complex constructions (Interview 5, Appendix F). Based on this, it can be stated that agreements on the operational scale might constitute to a just allocation in the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0 but currently these constructions are not developed.
5.4 Allocation strategies
Next to the distributive principles of capability and responsibility Höhne et al. (2014) defined two allocation strategies: equality and cost-efficiency. Equality is defined as the spatially even distribution of electricity generation, resulting in a spreading of energy resources (solar and wind) over a region (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019; Höhne et al. 2014). Cost-efficiency is defined as the spatially uneven distribution of electricity generation, resulting in a concentration of energy resources (solar and wind) in a region (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019; Höhne et al., 2014). The research made clear that cost-efficiency also can be defined in terms of spatial cluster arrangements where it is more cost-efficient if wind turbines are placed in clusters in order to enhance the efficiency of the exploitation of the power grid.
The interviews showed that during the consultation process towards the concept version of the RES the allocation strategies of spreading or concentration of TWh over the different municipalities in the regions are not discussed, but perhaps will be discussed in the decision making process by city councils (Interview 1, Appendix F). In general, the interviewees stated that the allocation of TWh over the region follows the distribution policy and therefore are equal allocated over the region. This image is confirmed by the survey that showed that 55% of the respondents see a distribution of TWh over the region, 27% see a clustering of TWh in a (limited) number of municipalities and 18% is neutral about this (figure 11, left). Next to this it can be concluded that a distribution of TWh over the different municipalities contributes to a just allocation as 73% of the respondents (highly) agreed with this statement (figure 11, right).
43
Figure 11: Survey question 10 (left) and survey question 11.2. Source: own work
The ten searching areas for wind energy are distributed over the region (Interview 7, Appendix F; Interview 4, Appendix F; Interview 6, Appendix F). Solar fields will be allocated in the rural areas of the municipalities and since the municipalities of Lochem and Voorst are characterised with large rural areas and promising hectares a relative substantive part of the solar energy will be placed on these municipalities (Interview 4, Appendix F; Interview 6, Appendix F). Respondent 2 and 7 remarked that it is not certain to what extent the planned amount of TWh is realistic. This implies that the allocation strategy can be different towards the definitive version of the RES and the executive part of the RES. Another form of injustice can occur in the proportion between solar and wind energy. Currently the focus is on solar energy, but a focus on more wind energy will increase the efficiency of the exploitation of the power grid (Interview 6, Appendix F). Another point that is addressed by respondent 7 is the fact that the location of substations influences the locations of solar- and wind energy. Because of the business case energy resources are located as close as possible to these substations which leads to lower societal costs. Eventually this results in a clustering of energy resources which can be in conflict with a just allocation. Therefore, the allocation of energy resources is a trade-off between lower societal costs and clustering or higher societal costs and an (equal) distribution over the region.
Figure 12: Map with the searching areas for wind energy (left) and map with the promising hectares for solar energy in the Clean-Tech region (right). Source: Concept-RES (2020)
The third explanation for the experience of a just allocation is the trade-off between a cost-efficient and equal way of energy resource distribution. The survey showed that an equal distribution of TWh over the different municipalities constitutes to a just allocation. The allocation of energy resources in a cost-efficient way leads to lower societal costs but results in a clustering of energy resources on specific locations because of the business case. The clustering of energy resources in a specific location can be in conflict with a just allocation. Therefore, the allocation of energy resources is a trade-off
44 between lower societal costs and clustering or higher societal costs and an (equal) distribution over the region.
5.5 Regional justice
In the survey the question is posed ‘how just is the RES-bid of the Cleantech Region compared to the national energy task?’. 9% of the respondents found it very just, 36% found it just and 55% is neutral about this. The answer categories unjust and highly unjust are not present (Question 1, Appendix E). This means that the respondents consider the regional energy bid of the Cleantech region as just. The Cleantech formulated the ambition to be energy neutral in 2030 and therefore it is important to offer the maximal contribution to achieve this objective (Interview 6, Appendix F). There are two comments to this regional energy bid. On the one hand, to achieve the objective of the Cleantech region the contribution from the concept-RES is to low (Interview 2, Appendix F). On the other hand, the current energy bid is, based on the current insights, the maximal contribution at this moment. In the process towards the realisation it will turn out what part of the regional energy bid is realistic and feasible in terms of system efficiency and policy (Interview 2, Appendix F; Interview 4, Appendix F).
Next to this, the research shows that the RES-region lacks democratic and juridical legitimacy. One of the interviewees stated that ‘decisions are placed at the regional level that lacks democratic legitimacy’ (Interview 2, Appendix F). The other interviewee stated that region is not a legitimate system, but a cooperation (Interview 3, Appendix F). The regional energy strategy is executed at the regional level and is not a municipal strategy. Respondent 3 stated that ‘the problem with this that it is at least a construction fault, because the city council states something about the entire region wherefore it is not authorized’ (Interview 3, Appendix F). Respondent 3 stated that in the frame of justice it would be more just if the ‘decision making process (…) was executed following the lines of our system’. One of the solutions to make it more just is to choose for a municipal energy strategy because city councils are authorised to legitimise the actions within their administrative borders (Interview 3, Appendix F). However, this approach is not operable because this leads to at least 300 energy bids. Another solution to enhance the democratic decision-making is to make the provincial border the municipal border (Interview 2, Appendix F). However, in the current approach the municipalities are authorised whereas provinces lack this decision power (Interview 3, Appendix F).
5.6 Local justice
In general, the municipalities of the Cleantech region consider their contribution to the regional energy bid as just. The municipality of Lochem stated that their municipality received a disproportionate share of the amount of sustainable energy (Interview 5, Appendix F) and did not agree with the amount of solar energy (Interview 2, Appendix F). The municipality of Lochem received the largest amount of solar energy because the municipality is characterised with a large agricultural area that is suitable for solar energy (Interview 5, Appendix F). However, the relatively large share of solar energy for the municipality of Lochem is compensated with a relatively low share of wind energy in Lochem (Interview 5, Appendix F). The other municipalities consider their contribution as just but have doubts about the feasibility of the searching areas.
Another important aspect is the translation of the regional energy bid into a municipal energy bid. In the survey the following question is posed: do you find it desirable to translate the regional energy bid into the contribution per municipality? 64% found this (highly) desirable, 9% was neutral about this and 27% found this (highly) undesirable (Question 3, Appendix E). This implies that the opinions about the desirability of the translation of the regional energy bid towards the municipal contribution differ from each other. On the one hand it is undesirable because it is a regional approach and not a municipal process (Interview 1, Appendix F). According to respondent 4 the steering group stated that every municipality takes it responsibility and avoids shifting of responsibilities (Interview 4, Appendix F). Through this approach municipalities follow the municipal ambition and the regional landscape form the guideline (Interview 1, Appendix F; Interview 6, Appendix F). On the other hand, it is desirable to
45 translate the regional energy bid into the municipal contribution because city councils want to know what the regional energy bid entails for their own municipality (Interview 2, Appendix F). In a later stage it is therefore desirable to make this translation because it provides insight for the decision- making process by city councils and provides clarity to the inhabitants (Interview 1, Appendix F; Interview 7, Appendix F).
5.7 Ambition
The municipal contribution to the regional energy bid is also influenced by the municipal ambition. In several municipalities the municipal ambition was a major starting point for the negotiation. According to respondent 1 the municipality of Zutphen formulated the ambition to be energy-neutral in 2030 which implies that the municipality takes the first possibility to achieve this objective. The municipality of Apeldoorn follows another objective to become energy-neutral, but also has chosen 2030 as an intermediate objective. Furthermore, the municipality of Apeldoorn aimed to realize 250 hectares of solar energy and 20 wind turbines which are now included in the regional energy bid (Interview 7, Appendix F). Other municipalities used the process to find out what the municipal task entails to achieve the objective of 2030 (Interview 4, Appendix F). The municipality of Heerde did not determine concrete ambitions already and therefore the ambition did not play a major role (Interview 6, Appendix F). In general, the municipalities face a tension field between their local ambitions and the scope of the RES. The RES focuses on solar, wind and heat but the ambition to be energy neutral in 2030 entails more important issues (Interview 8, Appendix F).
Next to the municipal ambition the approach and ambition of the aldermen also influences the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid. Both aldermen stated that the municipal ambition to be energy neutral in 2030 is an important starting point (Interview 3, Appendix F; Interview 5, Appendix F). The coalition agreement, that aims to be energy neutral in 2030, is for the aldermen the frame to act. In this respect, the RES is more a mean to achieve the objective of the coalition agreement (Interview 3, Appendix F). However, there is a difference in the approach of the aldermen with the municipal ambition. One alderman aims to generate not more than the municipality needs (Interview 5, Appendix F), whereas the other alderman aims to achieve the ambition of 2030 where it is not an issue that the municipality generates more than its neighbouring municipality (Interview 3, Appendix F). Respondent 3 stated that the energy transition is not only a moral obligation to reduce CO2, but also offers social and economic opportunities.
5.8 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, it can be stated that five factors explain the experience of a just allocation: landscape potential, moral obligation, trade-off between cost-efficiency and equality, municipal ambition and to a lesser extent clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits (summarized in table 15). The new factors that result from this research are displayed in grey.
Important Less important Not important Landscape potential Allocation of costs Responsibility Moral obligation Allocation of benefits Capability Equality & cost-efficiency Municipal ambition Table 15: List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important for a just allocation
The research showed that the indicator of capability is not important for the experience of a just allocation. Even as capability, the indicator of responsibility is not important for the experience of a just allocation in the definition as used in this research. Municipalities take their individual responsibility but also their regional responsibility to contribute as much as possible which is not based on allocation keys as land area, inhabitants or energy use. This analysis showed that some indicators are more important than others for the experience of a just allocation, but also generated three new indicators: landscape potential, municipal ambition and moral obligation (see figure 16).
46
CHAPTER 6: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter the experiences about procedural justice is examined. The indicators that are related to procedural justice are discussed with results from the survey as well from the interviews. The survey questions for procedural justice exist out of two types of questions. The first question examines to what extent the indicators contribute to a just process, in the perceptions of respondents. This question can therefore be considered as a value question. The second question examines to what extent the indicators were present during the process. This question can therefore be considered as an evaluative question. The value question will be shown in the left and the evaluative question in the right. In this way sub question 4 is examined, which is formulated as follows: What factors explain the experience of procedural justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
6.2 Information sharing
This paragraph discusses the indicators within the dimension of information sharing: transparency, timing and local information.
6.2.1 Transparency
In this subparagraph the indicator of transparency will be discussed. Transparency is defined as the openness of information-sharing in the process (Jenkins et al., 2016; Mundaca, 2018). The survey showed that the sharing of information in a transparent manner is important for a just process. 82% of the respondents stated that transparency contributes in a very high degree to a just process (figure 13, left). During the process, the majority of the respondents (64%) (highly) agreed with the statement that information is shared in a transparent manner during the process (figure 13, right).
Figure 13: Survey question 15.1 (left) and survey question 17.1 (right)
The interviews made clear that the process towards the concept version of the RES was preliminary an internal process of the province, municipalities, waterboards and Liander (Interview 1, Appendix F). The coordination group and steering group of the RES Cleantech Region engaged in dialogue with stakeholders instead of inhabitants. This approach is chosen because the organisation of the RES Cleantech region aims to develop a first professional step before they engage in dialogue with inhabitants (Interview 6, Appendix F). The interviewees stated that it is important to be transparent in information sharing (Interview 4, Appendix F), to make information traceable and to display information in a comprehensible way (Interview 6, Appendix F). This is executed with a digital platform wherein the history, background and news of the RES and the process are shared. This gives the possibility to retrieve data and obtain the most accurate information (Interview 7, Appendix F). Respondent 6 stated that it is also important to communicate as clear as possible about the considerations to select certain areas or establish certain preconditions. Besides that, respondents stated that it is not the ambition to create acceptation or support in this phase of the process (Interview 1, Appendix F; Interview 2, Appendix F).
47
6.2.2 Timing
Next to the transparency of information sharing, the timing of information sharing is an important aspect. Timing is defined as a timely informing of stakeholders during the process in an early stage of the process and on regular moments in the process (Mundaca, 2018). The survey showed that the 81% of the respondents stated that a continuously sharing of information contributes to a just process (figure 14, left). This means that a continuously sharing of information contributes to a just process. The evaluative question showed that 45% agreed with the statement that the sharing of information took place continuously, but also 18% disagreed with this statement (figure 14, right). This can be explained by the fact that it is difficult to involve stakeholders continuously due to the set-up of the RES-process (Interview 1, Appendix F).
Figure 14: Survey question 15.2 (left) and survey question 17.2 (right)
The interviews show that the stakeholders are timely informed at the beginning of the process (Interview 6, Appendix F) and also on regular moments during the process. Stakeholders were informed by their own municipality for the local design atelier but also by the region for the regional design atelier. Both municipalities as the organisation of the RES had the task to inform stakeholders (Interview 7, Appendix F). Respondent 7 stated that by means of personal emails stakeholders were informed at the beginning of the process about the RES. In this way stakeholders were able to prepare themselves for the local and regional design ateliers.
6.2.3 Local information
In this subparagraph the indicator of local information is discussed. Local information is defined as the mobilization of local information by a recognition of the value of local information and by an understanding how this information can be used (Jenkins et al., 2016; Mundaca, 2018; Emerson et al., 2012). The survey showed that the 90% of the respondents stated the mobilization of local information contributes to a just process (figure 15, left). The evaluative question showed that 18% agreed with the statement that local information is collected sufficiently as input for the process, but 55% is neutral about this and 27% (highly) disagrees with this (figure 15, right). This means that the mobilization of local information contributes to a just process in general, but this could have been improved during the process in the Cleantech region.
Figure 15: survey question 15.3 (left) and survey question 17.3 (right)
48
This can be explained by the fact that this stadium of the process is not very interesting for the inhabitants and therefore the mobilization of local knowledge was limited. However, the interviews showed that the uptake of information is executed by means of an online survey (Interview 8, Appendix F). Based on this survey regional preconditions are formulated as input for the negotiation during the consultation process. During the local design ateliers preconditions are formulated for the locations of solar energy (Interview 6, Appendix F). The revenues of the local design ateliers together provided information for the regional design ateliers (Interview 4, Appendix F).
6.3 Consultation
This paragraph discusses the indicators within the dimension of consultation: access to information, participation, institutional representation and shared motivation.
6.3.1 Access to consultation
First of all, it is important to examine the importance of access to consultation in the frame of procedural justice. Access to consultation is defined as the invitation to and attendance at stakeholder meetings (Mundaca, 2018). The survey showed that 82% of the respondents stated that the access to consultation contributes to a (very) high degree to a just process (figure 16, left). The evaluative question showed that 27% of the respondents agreed with the statement that stakeholders had sufficient access to the process whereas 36% had no opinion and 36% disagreed with this statement (figure 16, left). This means that the access to consultation contributes to a just process whereas during the process this could have been improved.
Figure 16: Survey question 15.4 (left) and survey question 17.4 (right)
This can be explained by the fact that due to the short throughput time the possibility to organize sufficient stakeholder meetings was limited (Interview 7, Appendix F). The interviewees stated that stakeholders were invited to attend both the local and regional design ateliers (Interview 4, Appendix F; Interview 6, Appendix F), but were also stimulated to take part in the ateliers (Interview 4, Appendix F). It was decided to select and invite only stakeholders to stakeholder meetings because they were able to deliver professional knowledge, whereas the inhabitants were invited to a lesser extent (Interview 6, Appendix F).
6.3.2 Participation
In most spatial planning studies participation is a precondition for an inclusive and just process. Participation is defined as the possibility to express opinions, interests and concerns during the process (Mundaca, 2018). The survey showed that 72% of the respondents stated that participation contributes to a (very) high degree to a just process (figure 17, left). The evaluative question showed that 45% of the respondent (highly) disagrees with the statement that there were enough possibilities for sharing opinions and concerns during the process (figure 17, right).
49
Figure 17: survey question 15.5 (left) and survey question 18.2 (right)
This can be explained by the fact that due to the short throughput time the possibilities to express opinions and concerns were limited. If stakeholders were not able to attend a stakeholder meeting, they missed an opportunity to express their opinions and concerns (Interview 7, Appendix F). However, the stakeholders that were invited for the regional and local design ateliers were able to express their opinions (Interview 1, Appendix F). The interviewees stated that for the continuation of the process it is important that stakeholders can express their opinions about the concept version of the RES so that the city council can take this along in the decision-making process (Interview 4, Appendix F). Next to this, most respondents agreed that more focus on the participation of inhabitants is desirable in the process from the concept-RES towards the RES 1.0.
6.3.3 Institutional representation
Next to participation itself, it is important to see who is represented during the participation. Institutional representation is defined as an equal representation and inclusion of stakeholders in the consultation process (Jenkins et al., 2016; Leventhal, 1980). The survey shows that institutional representation is important for a just process. 64% of the respondents stated that institutional representation contributes in a high degree to a just process (figure 18, left). The evaluative question shows that the municipal organisation was organised sufficiently during the process (figure 18, right)
Figure 18: survey question 15.6 (left) and survey question 18.3 (right)
There is a distinction between the municipal representation and the stakeholder representation. The interviewees stated that the municipality is represented by civil servants of spatial planning, sustainability and urbanism (Interview 1, Appendix F; Interview 4, Appendix F). The spatial department was present during the process as a representation of the whole organisation. Criticism is expressed on the relation between the intern expertise of the municipality itself and the expertise of consultancies and stakeholders. This could have been improved with more interaction between both forms of knowledge. Stakeholders were not representative during the process. Community councils were not always present at the local design ateliers whereas community action groups were always present (Interview 7, Appendix F). Next to community councils, the sector of recreation entrepreneurs
50 was not always represented during the process despite they were invited in the process (Interview 4, Appendix F). The stakeholder representation can be enlarged by paying more attention to the inclusion of these groups in the process towards RES 1.0. However, the representation of the stakeholders gives a form of legitimacy to the process, but eventually the municipalities are responsible for the decision- making (Interview 6, Appendix F).
6.3.4 Shared motivation
In this subparagraph the indicator of shared motivation is described. Shared motivation is defined as the personal drive to achieve a common objective as the result of mutual trust, mutual understanding and commitment (Emerson et al., 2012). The survey shows that shared motivation contributes to a just process. 72% of the respondents stated that shared motivation contributes to a (very) high degree to a just process (figure 19, left). The evaluative question showed that 36% stated that shared motivation has not been present during the process (figure 19, right). Based on this it can be stated that shared motivation contributes to a just process, however in the process the shared motivation can be improved.
Figure 19: Survey question 15.7 (left) and survey question 18.4 (right).
The interviews show that mutual trust is present both at the level of the administrators as on the level of the civil servants. This mutual trust creates also mutual understanding. This is illustrated in the following citation: ‘there was no moment of distrust and if someone said: I cannot sell this in my municipality. Then we understand that and together discover possibilities to agree again’ (Interview 1, Appendix F). Mutual trust and understanding were also present on the level of stakeholders but lacks on the level of inhabitants. According to respondent 7, the underlying attitude for inhabitants is distrust as ‘large scale energy generation is intense for many inhabitants’. The involvement of stakeholders in this stage of the process was sufficient but it is expected that this will be enhanced in the process towards more concrete searching areas and concrete energy projects (Interview 6, Appendix F).
6.4 Decision-making process
This paragraph discusses the indicators within the dimension of the decision-making process: data- driven decision-making and democratic decision-making.
6.4.1 Data-driven decision-making
Data-driven decision-making is defined as the decision-making process based on technical knowledge, obtained from joint-fact finding, shared knowledge and knowledge building (Karl et al., 2007; Emerson et al., 2018). The survey shows that the respondents did not provide an unambiguous value to what extent data-driven decision-making contributes to a just process (figure 20, left). As the decision- making has not started yet in the Cleantech region the evaluative question is formulated as a preview.
51
In view of this, the majority of the respondents (36%) disagrees with the statement that data-driven decision-making enhances the sense of justice (figure 20, right).
Figure 20: Survey question 15.8 and survey question 19.1
The interviews showed that data provides for example insight in the amount of energy that is used in the region but also in the minimal distances between houses and renewable energy (Interview 4, Appendix F; Interview 6, Appendix F). Based on this knowledge, obtained from GIS systems, decisions can be made about the impact of these renewable energy resources on the landscape and on society (Interview 4, Appendix F). In this respect data forms the basis of the discussion and is essential for the decision-making process in order to make informed choices. Due to the digitalisation data and information can be shared easier with stakeholders and inhabitants (Interview 7, Appendix F). Data is used as a professional preparation for the decision-making process in order to specify and sharpen the discussion. In this way, less discussion is needed about facts and more attention can be paid towards values and opinions of stakeholders. Thus, data forms the starting point and creates input for the decision-making but is less essential than democratic decision-making.
6.4.2 Democratic decision-making
After the consultation process a democratic decision-making process takes place for the determination of plans by the city council and the possibility to submit several perspectives (Morrell, 2005). The majority of the respondents (90%) stated that democratic decision-making contributes to a (very) high degree to a just process (figure 21, left). As the decision-making has not started yet in the Cleantech region the evaluative question is formulated as a preview. In view of this, the majority (73%) (highly) agreed with the statement that democratic decision-making enhances the sense of justice (figure 21, right)
Figure 21: Survey question 15.9 (left) and survey question 19.2 (right)
The interviewees stated that democratic decision-making is essential for the justification of the process. The city council, as the elected representative, needs to determine the plans in order to give it a form of legitimacy. The concept-RES is approved by the administrators and the RES 1.0 will be determined by the city councils with the possibility to express their opinions by means of motions and amendments (Interview 3, Appendix F). The importance of democratic decision-making is illustrated in the follow citation: ‘I think that eventually decision-making needs to take place. Bringing together
52 as much parties as possible and wait for a consensus is not the way, because I think that in this way the objectives of the Climate Agreement will not be achieved’ (Interview 6, Appendix F). Next to this, the decision-making is also an important step towards the translation of the RES into environmental policy (Interview 1, Appendix F). The final product of the RES will also be influenced by political views and the underlying opinions of inhabitants (Interview 6, Appendix F). Therefore, it is important that in the process of the concept-RES towards the RES 1.0 more inhabitants receive more possibilities to participate because due to the short throughput time the possibilities to submit several perspectives was limited (Interview 5, Appendix F).
6.5 Conclusion
In figure 22 the statements, that evaluate the process of the RES in Cleantech region, belonging to the indicators of procedural justice are displayed. In general, it can be concluded that the transparency of information sharing, continuously information sharing, and representation are evaluated high whereas the mobilization of local information, the access to consultation, participation and shared motivation received a relatively lower evaluation. The statements belonging to the indicators of decision-making are not evaluative but are looking forward. Based on the results of the survey it can be stated that it is expected that primarily democratic decision-making enhances the sense of justice.
Figure 22: Indicators that shows to what extent the respondents agreed with the statements (evaluation)
In the figure below (figure 23) the indicators, belonging to procedural justice, are displayed. In general, it can be concluded that all indicators constitute to a just process as the answer categories small degree and very small degree are not present. A remarkable observation is that 27% of the respondents stated that data-driven decision-making constitutes in a small degree to a just process. To analyse to what extent the indicators constitute to a just process the answer categories ‘very high degree’ and ‘high degree’ are added. The five indicators that constitute the most to a just process are transparency (91%), local information (90%), democratic decision-making (90%), access to consultation (82%) and timing (81%). The indicators that constitute to a lesser extent to a just process are participation (72%), shared motivation (72%) and institutional representation (64%). The indicator of data-driven decision- making (27%) constitutes, as already stated, the least to a just process. It can be concluded that the assessments of the evaluative statements are lower than the value questions.
53
What factors constitute to a just process?
Transparency 82% 9% 9%
Timing 36% 45% 18%
Local information 45% 45% 9%
Acccess to consulation 27% 55% 18%
Participation 27% 45% 27%
Institutional representation 64% 36%
Shared motivation 36% 36% 27%
Data-driven decision-making 27% 45% 27%
Democratic decision-making 45% 45% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very high degree High degree High degree | Small degree Small degree Very small degree
Figure 23: Indicators that shows to what extent the indicators constitute to a just process (value)
The classification of the indicators is based on to what extent the indicators constitute to a just process. This is summarized in table 16, showing the indicators that are important, less important and the least important for a just process. The factors that constitute the most to a just process are transparency, mobilisation of local information, democratic decision-making, access to consultation and timing.
Important Less important Least important Transparency Participation Data-driven decision making Local information Shared motivation Democratic decision-making Institutional representation Access to consultation Timing Table 16: List with indicators that are important, less important or least important for a just process
To conclude, this analysis made clear that the level of procedural justice is high according to the respondents of the municipalities in the Cleantech region. However, due to the short throughput time of the general RES-process it was required to make choices that are in conflict with procedural justice. Because of that, the organisation of sufficient stakeholder meetings and possibilities for participation were limited in this phase of the process and need more attention in the follow-up process. Together with the democratic decision-making the experience about a just process will be enhanced in the process towards the RES 1.0.
54
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND REFLECTION
In this chapter the most important conclusions of the research will be described. The first paragraph focuses on the conclusions of the sub questions in order to provide a substantiated answer to the main research question. The second paragraph is a reflection on the research where the research methods and the research results critically are discussed. In the third paragraph the contributions of this research to the existing scientific literature is also discussed. The last paragraph discusses the recommendations for future research as well as the policy recommendations for the process towards the RES 1.0 and 2.0
7.1 Conclusion
In this research the experience of the regional energy justice is examined from the perspectives of the municipalities in the Cleantech region. The regional energy justice exists in this research out of two aspects. The first aspect is the just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid (resp. distributive justice). The second aspect is the experience of justice of the process (resp. procedural justice). The main question of this formulated as follows: What fact-based and subjective factors constitute the regional energy justice perspective, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
Sub question 1:
‘What factors can be derived from scientific literature that constitute to energy justice?’
This research divides energy justice into a just allocation and the experience of a just process, following two of the three tenets of energy justice: distributive justice and procedural justice (McCauley et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016). Distributive justice relates to the fairness in the outcome of the decision- making process (Jenkins et al., 2016). Within the frame of distributive justice, several factors can be derived from scientific literature that constitute to a just allocation: equality, cost-efficiency, allocation of costs, allocation of benefits, capability and responsibility. Next to distributive justice, procedural justice is about the fairness in the sharing of information, the consultation process and the decision- making processes (Schlosberg, 2003; Mundaca et al., 2018). Within the frame of procedural justice, several factors can be derived from scientific literature that constitute to the experience of a just process: transparency, timing, local information, access to consultation, participation, institutional representation, shared motivation, data-driven decision-making and democratic decision-making.
Sub question 2:
‘How is justice described in the policy documents of the RES-regions?’
The content-analysis showed that in the preliminary memoranda of the selected RES-regions justice is predominantly described in terms of allocation of costs and benefits, transparency, timing, mobilisation of local information, access to consultation, participation, democratic decision-making and institutional representation (table 17). The content analysis showed that the allocation of costs and benefits is crucial in the preliminary memoranda with a broad interpretation about what costs and benefits entails. Citizens can for example profit from energy projects, by means of local ownership or financial participation, or be compensated for losses. However, several costs and benefits are formulated on the operational scale while a discussion of the costs and benefits between municipalities and on the regional scale is lacking. Because the possibilities and chances of large-scale generation are different for the municipalities in a RES-region the contributions of the municipalities to the regional energy bid are different. This implies that some municipalities receive more wind turbines and solar fields than other municipalities. To enhance the justice of this allocation, clear
55 agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits on the regional scale are essential. This can be done by the investigation of new economic opportunities such as new facilities.
Next to this, the analysis showed that not only the sharing of information in a transparent and timely manner constitutes to justice, but also the mobilisation of information needs to take place in local and regional design ateliers. Participation and the access to consultation is in this respect an important precondition for the feasibility of the RES-process. Another remarkable result of the analysis is that participation (procedural and financial) is closely related to support (societal and administrative). To achieve support, an extensive communication and participation project is essential. Lastly, the content- analysis showed that the role of the steering group and aldermen is important during the consultation process while the role of the city council is essential during the decision-making process to ensure the democratic legitimacy.
Important Less or not important Allocation of costs and benefits Capability Transparency Responsibility Timing Equality Local information Cost-efficiency Access to consultation Shared motivation Participation Data-driven decision-making Institutional representation Democratic decision-making Table 17: List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important
Sub question 3:
‘What factors explain the experience of distributive justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?’
Based on this research, five factors can be derived that constitute to the experience of a just allocation: landscape potential, moral obligation, trade-off between cost-efficiency and equality, municipal ambition and to a lesser extent clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits (summarized in table 18). The indicator of capability is not important for the experience of a just allocation. The indicator of responsibility is not important for the experience of a just allocation in the definition as used in this research.
Important Less important Not important Landscape potential Allocation of costs Responsibility Moral obligation Allocation of benefits Capability Equality & cost-efficiency Municipal ambition Table 18: List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important for a just allocation
First, the landscape potential is leading for the justification of this allocation issue. The research made clear that the model-based allocation (land area, inhabitants and energy use) is too basic, because in the process attention is preliminary paid to the landscape potential. The most effective places, based on the characteristics of the area and the capacity of the landscape, are the precondition for the allocation whereas the number of inhabitants, land area and energy use are less relevant. In this respect the municipal borders should not be used as fixed lines. The preference is given to the process- based allocation instead of a model-based allocation. However, the model-based allocation can be used to assess if the outcome of the process (which follows the landscape potential) is fair.
56
A second explanation for the experience of a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid is that municipalities consider it as their moral obligation to contribute as much as possible. The starting point in the allocation issue is that municipalities take their individual responsibility to generate energy as much as possible on their own territory, but also take their regional responsibility to contribute or generate electricity for the region. This research finding is not in corresponding with the definition of responsibility as used in this research. The third explanation for the experience of a just allocation is the trade-off between a cost-efficient and equal way of energy resource distribution. The survey showed that an equal distribution of TWh over the different municipalities constitutes to a just allocation. The allocation of energy resources in a cost-efficient way leads to lower societal costs but results in a clustering of energy resources on specific locations because of the business case. The clustering of energy resources in a specific location can be in conflict with a just allocation. Therefore, the allocation of energy resources is a trade-off between lower societal costs and clustering or higher societal costs and an (equal) distribution over the region.
A fourth explanation for the experience of a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid is the influence and importance of the municipal ambition, documented in sustainability programmes and coalition agreements. The fifth explanation for the experience of a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid is the development of clear agreements about a just allocation of costs and benefits. On the strategic regional scale this can be executed by means of (financial) compensation, co-investments of neighbouring municipalities or authorisation of the province to develop more housing or other facilities. This might constitute to a just allocation in the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0 but currently these constructions are not developed. On the operational scale clear agreements about the allocation of benefits can be established by municipalities. However, this will play a major role in the executive part of the RES towards environmental policy or invitation frames. Based on this research it is expected that a diminishing of the social costs and a focus on the financial benefits will enhance the experience of justice and might also constitute to a justification of the allocation afterwards.
In addition to these factors that explain the experience of a just allocation, two factors form a risk for the experience of a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid. First, the opinions about the desirability of a translation of the regional energy bid towards the municipal contribution are divided. On the one hand, a translation is desirable because it is essential for the decision-making by city councils to know what the municipal contribution entails. On the other hand, a translation is undesirable as the regional energy strategy is executed on the regional level and not on the municipal level and therefore can harm the process. Second, as the regional energy strategy is executed on the regional level and not on the municipal level the RES- region is not an authorized organisation and therefore lacks democratic and juridical legitimacy. City councils agree with the RES 1.0 but indirectly also agree with their municipal contribution. This is in conflict with procedural justice and can therefore lead to the experience of injustice.
Sub question 4:
‘What factors explain the experience of procedural justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?’
Next to the factors that explain the experience of a just allocation, several factors can be derived from the research that constitute the experience of a just process. In general, it can be concluded that all indicators of this research constitute to a just process. However, based on the survey a difference can be made to what extent these indicators constitute to a just process. The most important factors are transparency, local information, democratic decision-making, access to consultation and timing. The factors that are less important are participation, shared motivation and institutional representation. The factor that is the least important is data-driven decision-making (table 19).
57
Important Less important Least important Transparency Participation Data-driven decision making Local information Shared motivation Democratic decision-making Institutional representation Access to consultation Timing Table 19: List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important for a just process
In general, the level of procedural justice is high according to the respondents of the municipalities in the Cleantech region. On the one hand, this is the result of a transparent way of information sharing by making information traceable but also because of the timeliness of information sharing at the start of the process and on regular moments during the process. On the other hand, the survey that is executed during the process enabled the mobilization of local information which in turn ensures the inclusion of opinions and preferences of stakeholders and inhabitants. A main drawback is that due to the short throughput time of the RES the coordination group of the Cleantech region was forced to make choices that are in conflict with procedural justice. Because of that, the organization of sufficient stakeholder meetings and the inclusion of inhabitants in order to express opinions or concerns was limited in this phase of the process. However, in the phase towards the concept-RES the support and participation of inhabitants is less important because the region first want to develop a professional plan before entering in dialogue with inhabitants.
During the consultation there was a notion of a constructive collaboration between governments (e.g. municipalities, provinces and water boards), grid operators and stakeholders. The research shows that an intensive way of collaboration generates mutual trust that in turn creates mutual understanding. Mutual trust was present at the level of administrators, civil servants and stakeholders but lacks on the level of inhabitants. This can be explained by the fact that inhabitants were only represented in community councils that were not always present during stakeholder meetings. However, the representation of the stakeholders gives a form of legitimacy to the process, but eventually the municipalities are responsible for the decision-making. The research shows that democratic decision- making is essential for the justification of the process to give it a form of legitimacy. Lastly, data-driven decision-making enables the democratic decision-making by city councils in a way that councillors are able to make informed choices based on a thorough data-analysis.
Main research question:
What fact-based and subjective factors constitute the regional energy justice perspective, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
The regional energy justice perspective, that is examined in this research, exists out the experience about a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid as well as the experience about a just process of the Regional Energy Strategy (RES). A first important conclusion of this research is that there are certain variations in the desirability of a translation of the regional energy bid into the municipal contribution. On the one hand, the RES is considered as a regional task and not a municipal energy study whereby a translation to the municipal contribution is undesirable. On the other hand, a translation to the municipal contribution is desired because it is considered to be an essential precondition for the decision-making process by city councils in order to make informed choices. However, the decision-making by city councils is a construction fault of the RES as city councils are expected to decide on the regional contribution wherefore it is not authorized. This implies that if a city councils consent with the regional contribution indirectly agrees upon the municipal contribution. Next to this, the RES-region is a cooperation and not a legitimate system wherefore it lacks in democratic and juridical legitimacy.
58
Based on the research five factors are identified that constitute to a just allocation: landscape potential, municipal ambition, moral obligation, trade-off between equality and cost-efficiency and allocation of costs and benefits. First, the allocation of the energy task in the Cleantech region is based on the landscape potential. The selection of future locations for renewable energy is based on the capacity of the landscape wherefore the energy resources are placed on the most effective places which constitute to a just allocation. However, following the landscape potential as a starting point results in the fact that municipalities with a large number of promising hectares contribute more to the regional energy bid. This can be in conflict with the experience of a just allocation. Regional energy justice can be defined based on a calculation, but this research shows that the municipal ambition also has an influence on the municipal contribution as municipalities consider it as their moral obligation to take their individual and regional responsibility.
Another factor that constitutes to a just allocation is the spatial distribution of energy resources over the region. However, this leads to higher societal costs whereas a concentration of energy resources diminishes the societal costs but leads to a clustering in specific locations. This trade-off between a cost-efficient and equal way of energy resource distribution constitutes, dependent on the consideration, to a (un)just allocation. The last factor that constitutes to a just allocation is the development of clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits. Agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits on the strategic regional scale, which consists out of (financial) compensation, co-investment of neighbouring municipalities or authorisation of the province to develop more housing or other facilities, might constitute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution in the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0. On the operational scale clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits will play a major role in the executive part of the RES towards concrete energy projects. Based on this research it is expected that a diminishing of the social costs and a focus on the financial benefits will enhance the experience of justice and might also constitute to a justification of the allocation afterwards.
Next to the factors that constitute a just allocation, this research identified five important factors that constitute a just process: transparency, timing, mobilisation of local information, access to consultation and democratic decision-making. The transparency and timely way of information sharing constitute to openness in the process and enables stakeholders to participate. The survey enabled the mobilization of local information which in turn ensures the inclusion of opinions and preferences of stakeholders and inhabitants. A main drawback is that due to the short throughput time of the RES the coordination group of the Cleantech region was forced to make choices that are in conflict with procedural justice. Because of that, the organization of sufficient stakeholder meetings and the inclusion of inhabitants in order to express opinions or concerns was limited in this phase of the process. Lastly, it is important to state that discussions about justice will play a major role in a later stage of the RES as the searching areas become clearer and will be converted towards concrete wind and solar projects. The research shows that democratic decision-making is essential for the justification of the process to give it a form of legitimacy. In the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0 the extension of participation will lead to more support, or at least acceptation. By means of this, municipalities, stakeholders and inhabitants cooperate to achieve the common objective and justify both the allocation and the process of the RES.
59
7.2 Reflection
In this paragraph the research methods and the data collection are critically discussed. This paragraph also includes a reflection on the use and consequences of the theories that are included in this research.
7.2.1 Reflection on methods
To reflect on the intern validity of this research it is important to discuss the limitations of the methods that are used in this research: content-analysis, survey and interviews. First, the directed content- analysis uses theory to create predetermined codes which provides a clear focus for the analysis. However, this deductive approach contains the pitfall that other (inductive) codes are not taken into consideration. A non-directed content-analysis would have been an addition to include other (inductive) codes. Next to this, a deductive approach for this content-analysis threatens the neutrality and confirmability of the data-analysis as the contextual aspects of the data were less taken into consideration. Second, the questions within the survey mainly exist out of questions on a 5-point Likert-scale. The Likert-scale provided insight in the opinions of the respondents, however questions with an assessment on a scale of 1 till 10 could have provided more insight to what extent the different indicators constitute to a just process. Next to this, the survey included statements in a matrix. Because respondents were asked to assess 9 statements at once on the Likert-scale it is not excluded that respondents assess every statement with an equal attention or carefulness.
A drawback of a survey is that respondents cannot ask questions for clarification and therefore there is a possibility of incorrect answers. In the comments at the end of the survey one respondents stated that some questions lacked some nuance and other respondents indicated that they did not understand a certain question. On the other hand, the answers cannot be influenced by the researcher which ensures the objectivity of the answers. A disadvantage of a survey is that respondents only can choose from a limited amount of answers. Because this can have consequences for the accuracy of the research, this is solved by adding the option ‘otherwise’ and a comments box. Another disadvantage of a survey is that interaction with the respondent and the opportunity to ask in-depth questions is not possible. This last drawback is solved with the conduction of interviews. The interviews provided the possibility to ask in-depth questions and discover the underlying motivations. However, unconsciously the observer can have an influence on the respondent and the results. Next to this, this research uses semi-structured interviews that provides the possibility to ask in depth questions. The use of a semi- structured interview has a lower validity than the structured interview which has predetermined questions and answer possibilities. However, the benefit of a semi-structured interview compared to the structured interview is the opportunity to ask in-depth questions that is valuable in identifying the underlying motivations.
The choice for qualitative research results in the difficulty to generalise qualitative research results. However, the use of a survey next to the interviews has been useful in obtaining precise results. If this research had chosen to use only use the interviews this would have led to less clear results as underpinning for the conclusions. Because of this mixed-methods approach it was possible to formulate more clear statements instead of ‘soft’ statements. For a good reflection on the methods the set-up of the mixed-methods approach needs a further explanation. First the respondents were asked to fill in the survey which served as a preparation for the interviews, provides the opportunity to ask questions based on the insights of the survey, and enabled to examine the indicators in a structured manner. Therefore, the survey should not be seen as a method on it own but in combination with the interviews. The added value of a mixed-method approach is that the results of the survey and the interviews can be reported in the combination of graphs and text. Next to this, the numbers are statistically seen not relevant but provided insight in the (un)importance of certain topics and themes. This is also an added value of the use of a survey in combination to interviews.
60
This research focused on a singular case study as it aims to draw an in-depth diagnosis of the experience of justice from the perspective of municipalities in the Cleantech region. This leads to the fact that the results of this research are context-specific. The drawback of constructivist research is that ‘facts’ only have a meaning within a network of values. This network of values is relevant in a specific research context or case study. As this research investigated only one case-study it is difficult to generalise the conclusions from this research towards generic conclusions. This is also a drawback for the extern validity of this research. However, it was not the intention to generalise the research findings toward generic conclusions for other RES-regions. Therefore, the use of a multiple case-study is interesting to make a comparison to see to what extent the results correspond. The choice of more case-studies would have led to more generic conclusion based on the average of several research context. However, due to the scope of this research period it was not feasible to include more case- studies. It is also important to state that the RES-regions received the same task from the national government to offer an energy-bid and therefore the results and conclusions of this research might be applicable for municipalities in other RES-regions.
7.2.2 Reflection on data-collection
To examine the experience of a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid as well as the experience of a just process interviews are conducted, and a survey is distributed. The case-study of this research is the Cleantech Region that exists out of seven municipalities: Apeldoorn, Brummen, Epe, Lochem, Voorst, Heerde and Zutphen. All the municipalities granted permission for the interviews except the municipality of Epe, because of internal shifting of civil servants and absence due to a corona-related illness. This leads to a limited representative image of the perspective of all municipalities in the Cleantech region. However, the municipality of Epe filled in the survey and therefore the results of the survey are representative for the seven municipalities in the Cleantech region.
The research is aware of the relatively low number of respondents. However, the objective was to achieve the most representative data for the research. In total, 14 respondents (7 aldermen and 7 civil servants) were asked to participate in the interviews. At the end, 6 civils servants and 2 aldermen participated which makes a total of 8 respondents for the interviews. The low number of aldermen can be explained by the fact that aldermen in general have a fully booked time schedule. However, the respondents that eventually participated are a good representation for the case of the Cleantech region and the thesis is finished with the predetermined time. Because of the mixed-method approach a survey is executed next to the conduction of interviews which delivers extra respondents. The survey is filled in by 11 respondents. From the 11 respondents of the survey some respondents filled in the survey and participated in the interviews as well. Because of the combination of methods, the final result of the data-collection exists out of 8 unique respondents of the interviews and 5 unique respondents of the survey. This makes a total of 13 unique empirical data-points as underpinning of the conclusions. Nevertheless, if more respondents filled in the survey and participated in the interviews the validity of the research and the value of conclusions would have been enhanced.
For a representative image of the experience of justice from the perspectives of a municipality interviews are conducted with civil servants and aldermen. Interviews with city councillors would have led to a more representative image of the total administrative municipality. However, due to the corona-crisis the decision-making process has been postponed wherefore the interviews with city councillors was not possible because of (political) sensitivity. Next to this, the circumstances led to the fact that in this research it was only able to investigate the phase of the formulation of the concept- energy bid. The decision-making process about the concept-energy bid and the searching areas takes place in a later stage and therefore this is not included in this research. Because of that, the effect of the decision-making process on the experience of justice is not observed. In the first research set-up a calculation is made of what the translation of the regional energy bid towards the municipal
61 contributions entails. However, due to the corona-crisis the decision-making process has been postponed wherefore the confrontation with this calculation was not desirable. For this research it is not relevant to include this calculation. However, as the research shows, the calculation is valuable for a check or test by municipalities (see Appendix J). After all, it is a drawback that this calculation could not have been used in this research as two weeks of the research period are used for the calculation which is at the cost of the interviews.
7.2.3 Reflection on theories
It is important to note that this research focused on distributive and procedural justice while recognition justice is disregarded. This because recognition justice mainly relates to the perspectives of local communities and citizens who are not included in the scope of this research. However, the interviews showed that civil servants stated that citizens are not sufficient included in the process. This does not indicate that the citizens are not recognised, but that the involvement of citizens was limited in this phase of the process. On the other hand, we can also discuss to what extent and what form of participation is realistic on the strategic level. The RES is a strategic transition management type with an abstract problem scope (Loorbach et al., 2008). On the strategic level participation can lead to the improvement of plans but it is not always realistic to expect that participation leads to support or acceptation. This is more realistic on the operational level with a concrete problem scope (Loorbach et al., 2008). This observation implies that the recognition justice is relevant for this research afterwards. Next to this, the research included the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) of Emerson et al. (2012) and used the aspect of shared motivation as an indicator for this research. However, this research made limited use of the comprehensive framework of Emerson et al. (2012) because the theory about energy justice itself was already extensive. Afterwards, more focus on leadership, types of leadership or on resources (aspects belong to the CGR) could also have been interesting in the frame of justice.
Energy justice is designed as a conceptual framework for the analysis of (in)justices in the field of energy. The studies that are executed in the field of energy justice are mainly focused on themes as energy poverty of households or affordability issues concerning renewable energy. In the broad scope of studies, a study on energy justice on the regional level is lacking. Therefore, the concept of energy justice was useful for the framing of the data-analysis but did not provide a comprehensive or holistic framework. The research showed that on the regional level factors as ambition, moral obligation or landscape characteristics play a major role for the experience of justice. The framework could have been extended with literature from other concepts of justice. In this research energy justice is chosen as the main theoretical framework, whereas elements of other concepts of justice (e.g. spatial justice, urban justice or environmental justice) are not included into the operationalisation of the research. Next to concepts of justice, literature from the field of economics on the allocation of resources or (financial) compensation measurements on the regional scale level could have informed this research. This also applies to literature about political frames or agency structures that also could have given more information about the viewpoints of the respondents or the underlying motivations that explain why people act and think in a specific way.
Lastly, it is also important to reflect on justice as the object of study. Justice is a subjective concept and a social construction that lives in the minds of the respondents and therefore is person-dependent. During the research it became clear that the opinions and definitions about what justice entails differ from each other. Some respondents stated that in this phase of the RES justice is less relevant but will become an emerging theme towards the implementation phase of the RES. It is important to be aware of the fact that it is difficult to measure justice as the experience of justice is different per person. By a combination of interviews and survey it is tried to identify the most reliable and precise results from a subjective reality.
62
7.3 New theory development
This research delivers a contribution for society as it investigates the experience of justice of the RES. Next to this, the research contributes to science in three ways. First, it confirms existing theories that are related to energy justice and specific on the distributive and procedural aspects. Second, it shows the contradictions between the theories and the results of this research. Lastly, this research contributes to the existing scientific knowledge with new insights.
7.3.1 Empirical results in comparison to previous research
This research connects, as already stated, to the theory of energy justice (Jenkins et al., 2016; McCauley et al., 2013). In the frame of distributive justice this research confirms the importance of a just allocation of costs and benefits which enables the justification of spatial decisions, following from the RES-process, afterwards. In the frame of procedural justice this research stresses the fact that a transparent and timely way of information sharing next to the mobilisation of local information forms a crucial precondition for a just consultation- and decision-making process. Next to this, the research confirms the relation between trust and mutual understanding as is shows that an intensive way of collaboration generates mutual trust that in turn creates mutual understanding. The activation of collaborative governance results in the achievement of objectives that could not have been realised if stakeholders worked separately (Emerson et al., 2012). In this way this research subscribes the importance of collaborative governance in the frame of the Regional Energy Strategy (RES).
This research shows that the allocation of energy resources in the RES is based on the search for the optimal location as the landscape potential was the leading principle for the allocation during the process. However, the planning and decision-making processes assesses the justification of the allocation of energy resources in a later stage. This is therefore in contradiction with Grunewald (2017) that stated that the allocation of energy resources is less determined by the search of the optimal location but more by planning and decision-making processes. Thus, the allocation of energy resources over a region is based on the most effective and suitable locations but the justification of this spatial outcome is based on a careful designed and executed process. Furthermore, this research also shows that in the frame of justice the process itself is more important than the outcome of the process. This is in contradiction with Mundaca et al. (2018) that states that ‘in the process of the information sharing, consultation and decision-making stakeholders create an opinion about justice wherein the outcomes of the process are found to be more important than the process itself’.
7.3.2 Towards an advanced theoretical framework for regional energy justice
Next to the conformation of and the contradiction with existing theories, this research provides an attempt towards an advanced theoretical framework to analyse and assess regional energy justice.
The theory of energy justice is mostly applied on the operational scale but can also be applied on the strategic and tactical scale level. The perspectives of municipalities are valuable in the understanding of energy justice on the strategical regional scale. Municipalities are eventually responsible for the consultation- and decision-making process and have to make choices that need to be explainable in the frame of justice. An aspect that plays an important role on the regional scale is the development of agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits by means of financial compensation measures, co-investment by neighbouring municipalities in mutual energy projects or the authorization of a higher governmental organisation for compensation through other spatial issues. These constructions can potentially contribute to a justification of allocation strategies on the regional scale.
63
Within the local-regional cooperation process the spatial dimensions of the landscape form the starting point for the negotiation between municipalities in a region. On base of these spatial dimensions of the landscape the ultimate locations for future ‘energy landscapes’ are identified. In this respect, an allocation based on land area or inhabitants is not relevant. Because of that the indicator of capability, as defined by Höhne et al. (2014) needs to be redefined. The new definition of capability is, based on this research, as follows: the most effective locations, based on the characteristics and potential of the landscape, are suitable for renewable energy resources. Next to the spatial dimensions of the landscape, ambition is an important factor that constitutes a just allocation in particular and constitutes justice in general. Municipalities consider it as their moral obligation to take their individual and regional responsibility. In this way a relation is found between governmental policies that support renewable energy and the actual or planned generation of renewable energy. High political ambition can therefore result in green power policies that stimulates the generation of wind energy. Because of that, the indicator or responsibility, as defined by Höhne et al. (2014), needs to be redefined. The new definition of responsibility is, based on this research, as follows: municipalities take their moral obligation to take their individual responsibility to generate energy as much as possible for their own territory, but also take their regional responsibility to contribute or generate electricity for the region.
Next to the procedural and distributive aspect of energy justice, recognition justice is also an important aspect. Citizens are, relatively considered, marginally involved in the process due to the short throughput time of the Regional Energy Strategy (RES). Because of that, the necessity to make choices is enforced which can be in conflict with recognition and procedural justice. This research showed that there is not a notion of misrecognition but points to the necessity to make choices and set priorities. After the process towards a first version of the regional energy bid, the focus in the process towards the definitive version of the RES is on the recognition of citizens in the process. This is done by the mobilization of local information, granting access to consultation, by participation and institutional representation.
Based on this discussion, a new assessment framework is presented for the analysis of regional energy justice (table 20). The new assessment framework includes redefined definitions (marked in orange), new indicators (marked in green) and a new dimension (marked in green). In this new assessment framework, the tenet of recognition justice is included with the indicators of local information, access to consultation, participation and institutional representation. The indicators are placed under the dimension of involvement. Next to these changes, the indicators are ranked on base of what extent these indicators constitute to a just allocation on the one hand and a just process on the other hand. The ranking of the indicators is based on the following scale: very important (++), important (+), neutral (+/-), unimportant (-) and very unimportant (--). In this way, this research provides a first step towards a new theory about regional energy justice.
64
Dimension Rank Indicator Explanation Distributive justice Distributive principles + Capability The most effective locations, based on the characteristics and potential of the landscape, are suitable for renewable energy resources. ++ Responsibility The moral obligation of municipalities to take their individual responsibility to generate energy as much as possible for their own territory, but also take their regional responsibility to contribute or generate electricity for the region. ++ Ambition The municipal objective documented in sustainability programmes and coalition agreements Costs & Benefits + Allocation of costs The distribution of negative burdens on all groups of society, on the operational existing out of: scale ▪ Environmental costs (impairment of spatial quality, nature and ecosystem) ▪ Financial costs (societal (network) costs) ▪ Social costs (shadow disturbance, sound disturbance, horizon pollution) + Allocation benefits The distribution of positive profits on all groups of society, on the operational existing out of: scale ▪ Environmental benefits (CO2-emission reduction) ▪ Financial benefits (financial participation: local ownership, compensation, area fund) ▪ Social benefits (improvement living comfort, employment) + Allocation of costs The distribution of regional burdens and profit on the regional and benefits on scale, by means of: strategic regional ▪ (financial) compensation measurements scale ▪ Co-investments by neighbouring municipalities in mutual energy projects ▪ Authorization of the province for compensation through other spatial issues, such as housing Allocation strategies + Equality Spatially even distribution of electricity generation, resulting in a spreading of energy resources (solar and wind) over a region. + Cost-efficiency Spatially uneven distribution of electricity generation, resulting in a concentration of energy resources (solar and wind) in a region and a clustering of energy resources close to substations. Recognition justice Involvement ++ Local information Mobilization of local information by a(n): ▪ recognition of the value of local information ▪ understanding how this information can be used ++ Access to Invitation to and attendance at stakeholder meetings consultation + Participation Possibility to express opinions, interests, and concerns during the process + Institutional An equal representation and inclusion of stakeholders in the representation consultation process Procedural justice Information sharing ++ Transparency The openness of information-sharing in the process ++ Timing Timely informing stakeholders during the process in: ▪ an early stage of the process, and: ▪ on regular moments in the process Consultation process + Shared motivation Personal drive to achieve a common objective, as the result of: ▪ Mutual trust ▪ Mutual understanding ▪ Commitment Decision-making - Data-driven Decisions are based on technical knowledge, obtained from decision-making joint-fact finding, shared knowledge and knowledge building ++ Democratic Determination of plans by the city council and possibility to decision-making submit several perspectives. Table 20: Advanced theoretical framework for regional energy justice (source: own work)
65
7.4 Recommendations
Based on this research several policy recommendations as well as recommendations for future research are formulated in this paragraph.
7.4.1 Policy recommendation
The first policy recommendation is to explore possibilities for compensation measures on the regional level. The research indicates that this can be designed with forms of financial compensation on the regional scale. Because these financial compensations are not present yet, it is important to examine where these financial resources come from and in what way these resources can be invested with added value for the region. Next to financial compensation, co-investments by neighbouring municipalities in mutual energy projects that are located on the municipal borders is also a possibility to enhance the justification of the allocation. The last suggestion for compensation measures at the regional level is the authorisation of the province towards municipalities to develop more housing or other facilities. It is expected that these compensation measures constitute to a justification of the allocation towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0. The second policy recommendation is to develop regional or local implementation programmes such as invitation frames for large scale energy generation. In these implementation programmes agreements about costs and benefits, such as financial participation or local ownership, can be determined. Next to the translation of the RES into implementation programmes the agreements about costs and benefits can also be determined in environmental policy, such as the environmental program or environmental plan. Next to this, it is recommended to focus on a diminishing of the social costs and focus on the financial benefits as this will enhance the experience of justice and might also constitute to a justification of the allocation afterwards.
The third policy recommendation is to open a discussion about a translation of the regional energy bid towards the municipal contribution. The research shows that on the one hand a translation is desirable in respect to the decision-making process as city councils want to have insight in the spatial consequences for their own municipality. On the other hand, a translation is undesirable because it is a regional approach and a collective cooperation and not a strategy on the municipal level. The fourth policy recommendation is to focus on more citizen participation in the follow-up phase of the RES. Due to the short throughput time of the RES the coordination group of the Cleantech region was forced to make choices that are in conflict with procedural justice. Because of that, the organization of sufficient stakeholder meetings and the inclusion of inhabitants and community councils was limited in this phase of the process. Considering the fact that acceptation or support was not the objective in this phase of the process, the inclusion of inhabitants forms a point of attention for the continuation of the process towards the RES 1.0 and the executive part of the RES into implementation programmes. By doing this, the feasibility and legitimacy of the RES-process will be enlarged. It is expected that the decision-making process, that follows after the consultation process, will also enhance the legitimacy and justification of both the outcome and process of the RES-process.
7.4.2 Recommendation for future research
Next to policy recommendations, three recommendations for future research are formulated. First, it is important to conduct interviews with city councillors after the political decision-making process in order to draw a more representative image of the total administrative municipality. Next to this, a suggestion for future research is to examine other RES-regions to see to what extent the same results appear. The conclusions of this research are based on the case-study and therefore the perceptions of justice are context-specific. The third recommendation is to examine the level of justice in other RES- regions. By means of a survey with a larger sample and more interviews an assessment can be made about the level of justice in all the RES-regions. Lastly, it is suggested to take the perspectives of citizens into account as the RES-process and product become more concrete. In this way, the recognition perspective of justice can be included into the research. 66
REFERENCES
Alexander, E. R. (2002). The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation. Planning theory, 1(3), 226-249.
Andrews-Speed, P. (2016). Applying institutional theory to the low-carbon energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 216-225.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental 35.
Bouzarovski, S., & Simcock, N. (2017). Spatializing energy justice. Energy Policy, 107, 640-648.
Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy policy, 53, 331-340
Burney, A. (2008). Inductive and deductive research approach. Department of Computer Science, University of Karachi, Pakistan, 22
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Budischak, C., Sewell, D., Thomson, H., Mach, L., Veron, D. E., & Kempton, W. (2013). Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. journal of power sources, 225, 60-74.
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research policy, 41(6), 968-979.
Cleantech (2020, May 27). Tijdlijn. Samen stap voor stap bouwen aan een energieke en toekomstbestendige regio. Retrieved from: https://www.cleantechregio.nl/res/
Creutzig, F., Goldschmidt, J. C., Lehmann, P., Schmid, E., von Blücher, F., Breyer, C., ... & Susca, T. (2014). Catching two European birds with one renewable stone: Mitigating climate change and Eurozone crisis by an energy transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 1015- 1028.
Daher, M., Carré, D., Jaramillo, A., Olivares, H., & Tomicic, A. (2017, July). Experience and meaning in qualitative research: A conceptual review and a methodological device proposal. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 18, No. 3).
Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach.
Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign virtue: Equality in theory and practice. Cambridge: Harvard.
Drechsler, M., Egerer, J., Lange, M., Masurowski, F., Meyerhoff, J., & Oehlmann, M. (2017). Efficient and equitable spatial allocation of renewable power plants at the country scale. Nature Energy, 2(9), 17124.
67
Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., & van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: from complementarity to synergy. Environmental management, 54(3), 420-432.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1), 1-29.
Energeia. (sd). Regio-indeling regionale energiestrategie bekend. Regio-indeling regionale energiestrategie bekend. Energeia. Opgehaald van Energeia.
Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1-18.
Fell, M. J., Pye, S., & Hamilton, I. (2019). Capturing the distributional impacts of long-term low-carbon transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.
Finley-Brook, M., & Holloman, E. L. (2016). Empowering energy justice. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(9), 926.
Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a'post-socialist'age. New left review, 68-68.
Freitas, S., Catita, C., Redweik, P., & Brito, M. C. (2015). Modelling solar potential in the urban environment: State-of-the-art review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 915- 931.
Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 1(1), 24-40.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of applied psychology, 79(5), 691.
Grams, C. M., Beerli, R., Pfenninger, S., Staffell, I., & Wernli, H. (2017). Balancing Europe’s wind- power output through spatial deployment informed by weather regimes. Nature climate change, 7(8), 557-562.
Groenendaal, B. (2020). Om windmolenterrorisme te voorkomen moet de ‘pijn’ eerlijk worden verdeeld. Received from Volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/om- windmolenterrorisme-te-voorkomen-moet-de-pijn-eerlijk-worden-verdeeld~bbba9890/
Grunewald, P. (2017). Renewable deployment: Model for a fairer distribution. Nature Energy, 2(9), 1- 2.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
Harvey, D. (2010). Social justice and the city (Vol. 1). University of Georgia Press.
Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: the democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009-1031.
Höhne, N., Den Elzen, M., & Escalante, D. (2014). Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies. Climate Policy, 14(1), 122-147.`
68
Hulshof, M. & Straver, K. (2018). Werken aan ‘energie-rechtvaardigheid’. Opgehaald van Kennemer Energie: https://kennemerenergie.nl/2018/08/24/werken-aan-energie-rechtvaardigheid/
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework
for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American planning association, 65(4), 412-423.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of planning education and research, 21 (3), 221-236.
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R. (2016). Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 174-182.
Karl, H. A., Susskind, L. E., & Wallace, K. H. (2007). A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49(1), 20-34.
Klagge, B., & Brocke, T. (2012). Decentralized electricity generation from renewable sources as a chance for local economic development: a qualitative study of two pioneer regions in Germany. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 2(1), 5.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., & Fohrer, N. (2012). Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land use policy, 29(3), 521-535.
Lefebvre, H. (1967). Le droit à la ville. L'Homme et la société, 6(1), 29-35.
Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2008). Transition management for the Dutch energy transition: multi-level governance aspects. Managing the transition to renewable energy. Theory and practice from local, regional and macro perspectives, 245-266
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity‐based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161-183.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of management Journal, 35(3), 626-637.
Marcuse, P., Connolly, J., Novy, J., Olivo, I., Potter, C., & Steil, J. (Eds.). (2009). Searching for the just city: debates in urban theory and practice. Routledge.
McCauley, D. A., Heffron, R. J., Stephan, H., & Jenkins, K. (2013). Advancing energy justice: the triumvirate of tenets. International Energy Law Review, 32(3), 107-110.
Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3-4), 299-314.
Menz, F. C., & Vachon, S. (2006). The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: Experiences from the states. Energy policy, 34(14), 1786-1796.
69
Mertens, S. (2002). Wind energy in urban areas: Concentrator effects for wind turbines close to buildings. Refocus, 3(2), 22-24.
Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49-69. Mundaca, L., Busch, H., & Schwer, S. (2018). ‘Successful’low-carbon energy transitions at the community level? An energy justice perspective. Applied energy, 218, 292-303.
Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat (2019). Klimaatakkoord. den Haag: Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat.
Nationaal Programma RES (2019). Handreiking 1.1: Handreiking voor regio’s ten behoeve van het opstellen van een Regionale Energiestrategie. den Haag: Nationaal Programma Regionale Energie Strategie.
Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Harvard university press
RES Clean-Tech (2019). Regionale Energie Strategie Cleantech Regio 2020-2030: Startnotitie. Twello: Cleantech Regio.
RES Metropoolregio Eindhoven (2019). Regionale Energiestrategie Metropoolregio Eindhoven: Startnotitie. Eindhoven
RES Noord-Holland Noord (2019). Regionale Energiestrategie NHN: Startnotitie. Noord-Holland Noord
RES Groningen (2019). Startdocument Regionale Energiestrategie Groningen. Groningen.
RES U10/U16 (2019). Regionale Energiestrategie U16-regio: Startnotitie. Utrecht.
RES Zeeland (2019). Regionale Energiestrategie: plan van aanpak. Zeeland.
RES Clean-Tech (2020). Concept RES. Cleantech Regio.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. foresight, 3(1), 15-31.
Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning theory, 6(1), 52-68.
Sasse, J. P., & Trutnevyte, E. (2019). Distributional trade-offs between regionally equitable and cost- efficient allocation of renewable electricity generation. Applied Energy, 254, 113724.
Schlosberg, D. (2003). The justice of environmental justice: reconciling equity, recognition, and participation in a political movement. Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice, 77, 106.
Scheepers, P. L. H., Tobi, H., & Boeije, H. R. (2016). Onderzoeksmethoden (9e dr.).
Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice (Vol. 16). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied Energy, 142, 435-444.
Späth, L. (2018). Large-scale photovoltaics? Yes please, but not like this! Insights on different
70
perspectives underlying the trade-off between land use and renewable electricity development. Energy policy, 122, 429-437.
Späth, P., & Rohracher, H. (2010). ‘Energy regions’: The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research policy, 39(4), 449-458.
Stadszaken (2020). Energieopgave vooral ook ruimtelijk vraagstuk voor stad en land. Opgehaald van Stadszaken: https://www.stadszaken.nl/klimaat/energie/2120/energieopgave-vooral-ook- ruimtelijk-vraagstuk-voor-stad-en-land
Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International journal of psychology, 35(2), 117-125.
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 95.
Van Thiel, S. (2014). Research methods in public administration and public management: An introduction. Routledge.
Walker, G., & Day, R. (2012). Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition and procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth. Energy policy, 49, 69-75.
Walker, G. (2009). Beyond distribution and proximity: exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode, 41(4), 614-636.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Yenneti, K., Day, R., & Golubchikov, O. (2016). Spatial justice and the land politics of renewables: Dispossessing vulnerable communities through solar energy mega-projects. Geoforum, 76, 90-99.
Zait, A. (2016). Conceptualization and operationalisation of specific variables in exploratory researches–an example for business negotiation. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 63(1), 125-131.
71